Strike Three! Crown’s third attempt at imposing draconian bail conditions on fails By Arthur Topham

Strike Three! Crown’s third attempt at imposing draconian bail conditions on fails By Arthur Topham


Strike Three! : Crown’s third attempt at imposing draconian bail conditions on fails


Arthur Topham

On Friday, November 20th, 2015 publisher Arthur Topham returned for the third time to the B.C. Supreme Court in Quesnel to attend another bail hearing in the wake of the November 12th, 2015 guilty verdict in Count 1 of his two count indictment.

Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson was seeking what turned out to be a series of extremely harsh conditions that would have seen Topham charged with an additional criminal offence for allegedly publishing Crown disclosure documents as well as severe restrictions that would have prevented him from operating his website. In addition to those added Orwellian features Crown was also seeking unconstitutional conditions that would have prevented outside media from speculating on the reasons for the jury’s decision to find Topham guilty of Count 1.  And finally, new conditions that were ostensibly meant to protect jury members from being subject to criticism or harassment.

Both Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler and Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson appeared via telephone from Vancouver and Victoria while Topham attended in Quesnel along with Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson.

Crown made its presentation to Justice Butler followed by Defence counsel Johnson who countered all of Crown’s arguments with reasoned facts. When the smoke finally cleared it was apparent that Justice Butler wasn’t buying into Crown’s arguments and declined to impose any new conditions besides those already in effect with the exception of one small concession related to the safety of the jurors.

Crown, in its submission, argued that a photo of the potential jurors lined up in front of the courthouse on the snowy morning of October 26th (the first day of the trial) had been published on and it potentially posed a possible threat to the safety of the jury members (the photo, upon inspection didn’t show the faces of any of the people who were actually on the jury). Justice Butler was willing to concede to Crown’s request that it be removed and rather than have it written up in the new conditions Crown stated that if Mr. Topham would give the court his word that it would be remove then she would be happy with that. I assured Justice Butler that I would remove the photo as soon as I returned home and that was the end of it.

My wife and I and body guard Frank Frost left the courthouse feeling rather elated about the decision and knowing that had been victorious once again in retaining its right to carry on publishing until the Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) was heard. The date for the Charterapplication has been tentatively set for the week of January 25th, 2016.

Stay tuned folks!

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, 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.
Frederick Fromm's photo.
The tentative date for hearing the constitutional challenge is January 25 in Quesnel.

Free Speech Takes a Slam in Arthur Topham Verdict

Free Speech Takes a Slam in Arthur Topham Verdict

QUESNEL, BRITISH COLUMBIA, November 12, 2015. An eight woman, four-man jury delivered its mixed verdict at 11:27 this morning in the Arthur Topham free speech trial. M,r. Topham was charged with two counts of “willfully promoting hate” against a privileged minority, specifically Jews, under Canada’s notorious Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code — the hate law. The jury acquitted him on one count but convicted him on the other.
Almost immediately Crown Attorney Jennifer Johnston was on her feet wanting Mr. Topham’s bail conditions amended and his website shut down.
Not so fast, Judge Brian Butler ruled. She was told to file and application which will be heard Thursday November 19 by video hookup, with the judge in Vancouver and defence lawyer Barclay Johnson in Victoria.
The defence had sought to file a constitutional challenge at the start of proceedings. Judge Butler ruled that the challenge must await the end of the trial and a guilty verdict, should such be the case. Barclay Johnson explains that the judge said a constitutional challenge would have to await the establishment of “a factual context” is this case. “This case is very different in context from the Keegstra case in which the Supreme Court, in 1990, while finding that Sec. 319 does violate freedom of speech, did, by a narrow margin, uphold the law. “In Keegstra,” says Mr. Johnson, ” Jim Keegstra was teaching his views to a high school class, a captive audience. In this case, Mr. Topham ran a website. People had to willingly seek it out to read his opinions.”
The constitutional challenge will be filed within the 30-day limit.
Frederick Fromm's photo.
Mr. Topham, still in good spirits, pronounced himself a bit disappointed and puzzled by the jury’s decision.”It was so odd to find me guilty of one count but not both.  I think the jury thought I wrote a call for the genocide of Jews in the satire Israel Must Perish. it’s not even my book. I took the wording directly from Theodore Kaufman’s book Germany Must Perish” written in 1941. “This would seem to confirm indirectly that Germany Must Perish is a work of hate and written by a Jew.” yet, although then Detective Const. Terry Wilson of the B.C. Hate Squad said he’s been aware of Germany Must Perish for some years, no charges were ever laid.
“Despite the acquittal on one count, this is a sad day for freedom of speech in Canada,” said Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression which has supported Mr. Topham from the beginning in 2007, when he first became the target of Zionist groups trying to shut him down for his criticism of Israel. “After today’s verdict, it becomes just a little more difficult to criticize privileged minorities in Canada. However, the battle to rid this country of this thought control legislation will continue,” he vowed.



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, 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 that the prosecution found objectionable.

  1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann
  2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and the Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)
  3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
  4. The Biological Jew by Eustace Mullins
  5. 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

Preliminary Hearing Delayed in Arthur Topham “Hate” Case — Update

Preliminary Hearing Delayed in Arthur Topham “Hate” Case — Update


We forward Arthur Topham’s latest update on his Sec. 319 “hate law” case, resulting from complaints by B’nai Brith’s Harry Abrams and complainer-in-chief Richard Warman. This is a crucial case, as it involves the Internet. Mr. Topham, first with a now-stayed Sec. 13 complaint by Abrams, and now with the Criminal Code charges has been in the censors’ sights for a half dozen years. The late Doug Christie was Mr. Topham’s lawyer. With or without counsel, the impoverished Mr. Topham will battle on and we must support him — morally, financially and with advice.
Paul Fromm
Screen Shot 2013-04-18 at 11.39.37 AM.png
April 19, 2013
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
It’s been quite awhile since my last update which went out in late February. My apologies to all of you who have been left wondering what’s been going on with my legal battle with the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada. 
A rather long string of unforeseen events, most notably the death of my lawyer Douglas Christie back on March 11th, 2013, threw a monkey-wrench into the whole process. Then, just prior to the Easter long weekend in March, I came down with a rather wicked, unrelenting “bug” that knocked the wind out of my sails for a few weeks. Only recently have I been able to regain my course.
Of course, there being no rest for the wicked, all of my personal issues, including the passing of Doug Christie, didn’t slow down the onerous movement of the wheels of justice here in Zionist Occupied Canada. 
As such I’ll do my best to be concise as possible and try to outline where my case stands at present. 
Last Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 I appeared once again in provincial court in Quesnel. Prior to this date I had been in the same courtroom back on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 to attend what was originally supposed to be a hearing to deal with matters pertaining to the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on my Sec. 319(2) Criminal charge that had been scheduled to begin June 3 – 6, 2013. 
Upon the death of Mr. Christie I wrote to Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston on March 12th, 2013 and informed her that because of this unfortunate event I would not be prepared to deal with anything at that time. 
When I did appear on the April 2nd I informed Judge Morgan of my situation and the fact that I was without legal counsel. At the same time I advised the Judge that I was planning to submit what is known as a Rowbotham application to the court – a Rowbotham application being a legal document wherein an accused person who has been refused legal aid and who cannot afford a lawyer and who is facing a criminal charge that could include a jail sentence if found guilty can apply to the court to have the government appoint a lawyer if the case is deemed serious enough and the applicant (accused) can show that they aren’t in a position to afford a lawyer nor are they capable of defending themselves due to the complexity of the case.
Judge Morgan then gave me 14 days to prepare the Rowbotham application and set the next date for Tuesday, April 16th, 2013.
Still reeling from the viral infection I did my best to get all the paperwork done by the 16th. For the most part it was complete but in the interim period, on the advice of a lawyer, after reading through some of my previous correspondence with former counsel Doug Christie, I decided to make a second application to the court for an order wherein the Crown would have to furnish me with what is known as “particularization” of the Information. Allow me to explain what that is.
When Crown eventually got around to releasing Disclosure (basically their evidence) of the information surrounding the sec. 319(2) Criminal charge against me on January 31st, 2013 (after an eight and a half month delay!), it became fairly evident that they had scrapped together as much miscellaneous documentation that they could possibly come up with (My immediate impression was that he who had the most pages, regardless of their relevancy, would win). Disclosure showed that there was over a 1,000 pages of purported evidence that my lawyer was then going to have to wade through. 
Given this fact Doug had expressed to me some time after receiving the Disclosure disks that it would be extremely difficult to determine how long a potential trial might take considering that the over 1,000 pages of disclosure contained no real indication as to which of my writings they intended to focus on at trial. If they planned to go through it all and Doug had to raise defences of truth, fair comment, etc. over and over for everything that I’d ever written, (not to mention other writers included in the Disclosure) a four-week trial wasn’t that unrealistic. Thus the need to seek particularization of the disclosure.
On April 10th, 2013 I made an Application to a Judge for the following order: “Particularization of Information” and I based my reasons on the following statement:
“The Crown has provided over 1,000 pages of disclosure, including a broad array of material written by myself (the accused). The Crown has failed to indicate which of this material constitutes “willful promotion of hatred” within the meaning of Section 319(2), and which of the alleged hateful material is not covered by one of the defences in Section 319(3). Without specifics as to which of my writings are alleged to be hateful, it is impossible for me to make an accurate time estimate as to the length of the trial, or indeed to make full answer and defence.”
Part of the reason for making this application was the fact that in order to complete the Rowbotham application it was necessary for me to indicate the duration of any potential trial in order to get an estimate of the cost for hiring a counsel for that period.
Judge Morgan wasn’t present on the morning of April 16th and I appeared before a Justice instead. She asked me if the Rowbotham application had been filed yet and I informed her that it had not but that it would be completed that same day. She then told me that it was the intent of the court to go ahead and set a new date for the preliminary hearing regardless of whether I had counsel or not. Crown also indicated that the likelihood the original dates set for the preliminary hearing would still work were unlikely. The Justice then informed the Crown that unless a date was set soon it would mean a rather long delay again because at that point the earliest a preliminary hearing might be heard was already November or December of 2013. 
Following this discussion the Justice then moved on to my most recent application of April 10th and instructed me to come to her office at 1:30 pm that same day and she would then tell me what the dates would be for a hearing for the “particularization” application and for the preliminary trial.
As I had all the documents with me to complete the Rowbotham application I spend the remainder of the morning completing and filing it. Part of that procedure entails sending both a sworn Affidavit and also what is known as a “Notice of Application and Constitutional Issue” to three separate parties, the Crown Counsel, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia. 
By my afternoon appointment with the Justice I had all these documents filed and sent off. In the process I also filed another document with the court registry. This one was called a “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. Basically it is a document that argues the reasons (as stated in case law) for why particularization of the Disclosure is vital to my defence.
Now, speaking of my Defences in this case I will quote below precisely what these are as they appear in the Canadian Criminal Code. This is where the chutzpah of those who have been instrumental in the  laying of this specious charge will be most clearly evident, given that a jury of twelve of my peers would have to unanimously agree that none of the defences listed below, were relevant. Further information on the  actual nature of the Section 319(2) charge I’ll deal with in future  posts.
Under Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada we see the following:
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an 
                   opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;             
(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; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters 
                   producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in 
When I met with the Justice at 1: 30 pm on April 16th she had some new information to add to what she’d told me earlier in the morning. I’m presuming this had to do with the fact that in the interim period I had filed the Rowbotham application as well as the additional “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. The Justice told me that they weren’t clear at this point regarding the Rowbotham application and they were therefore assuming that once the Attorney General of B.C. received the application that the AG’s office would then send me further instructions as to what additional information I must furnish the court with in order that a hearing on the Rowbotham application might then be set. the Justice appeared to think that I would receive these instructions and be able to respond to them by the 16th of May, 2013 and so she set that date for my next appearance; one which would also include speaking to my April 10th application regarding “Particularization of Information”.
I trust that all my readers have this clearly in their minds by now. 🙂
I’ll summarize this update with one final editorial comment. By all appearances it would seem that there will be a concerted and determined effort on the part of the Crown aka Attorney General of B.C. to have this Rowbotham application quashed or denied. Why? Well, from speaking with other counsel who are in the know, it seems that the government really doesn’t like it when an innocent and financially challenged person is accused of a criminal offence and then displays the audacity to expect that the Crown would ensure that they have professional legal counsel in order to deal with all the spurious and specious accusations made against them. Unfortunately, for them, they have to deal with both the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, Section 8; and the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, Sections 7, 11 (d) and 24(1), both of which protect my inherent right to a fair trial and defence.
So it goeth out here in Lotus Land as of April 19th, 2013 as the free speech advocates continue their struggle to rid our nation of foreign Zionist interlopers hell-bent on destroying our country, our institutions and our democratic way of life by entrenching their heinous “hate crime laws” in our judicial system so as to cover up their own  actions against Canada.
Stay tuned folks!
For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone, Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on. 
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 Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 


I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping 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. 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
V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at or my blog The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
The Radical Press