Canada’s illegal witch-hunt: Arthur Topham trial continues Monday — CAFE DAILY REPORT BY E-MAIL AND ON http://cafe.nfshost.com

Canada’s illegal witch-hunt: Arthur Topham trial continues Monday — CAFE DAILY REPORT BY E-MAIL AND ON http://cafe.nfshost.com

Israel's 2014 military attack on Gaza civilians

Israel’s 2014 military attack on Gaza civilians

In a shameful display of state hubris, Canada is using illegal concocted provisions of its Criminal Code to prosecute a citizen for innocuous postings on a personal blog (The Radical Press). The provisions allow a maximum 2-year prison sentence, where the state prosecutor (“Crown”) does not need to prove intent to harm or any actual harm to a single person. Intent and actual harm are not even relevant legal considerations in the proceeding. Both harm and intent are presumed.The said Criminal Code provisions are straight out of the playbook of a totalitarian state.

The show trial was separated into two parts, despite the objections of the accused. In the first part the accused was found criminally guilty, for one blogpost, while not guilty for the other blogpost of the Crown’s charge. In the second part, which is scheduled to start tomorrow Monday October 3rd, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged on limited grounds. Any sentencing will be decided after the ruling on constitutionality.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

Meanwhile, the “defendant” was gagged from identifying the original complainants (the usual crew) but allowed to continue blogging about the process until a conviction is finally secured, and has mounted a funding campaign for the expensive constitutional challenge.

These kinds of show-trial proceedings and the associated media assaults are attempts to create a false impression of a victimized Israel, to shield the apartheid state from international condemnation for its on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions, illegal annexation, constant violations of human rights, and mass-murder “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. Israel wants a free hand to continuously expand by the same criminal methods it has used for decades. Therefore, when successful, the domestic show trials (most prominent in Canada, France, and Germany) are geopolitical in character by virtue of Israel’s leading role in US interference in the Middle East, with Canada and France as lead accompanying sycophant states.

Canada’s Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has defended Arthur Topham against the state’s attack on freedom of thought and expression with several interventions. OCLA applies the principle that those who’s views are most at odds with orthodoxy and who are most aggressively attacked using the state apparatus are those most in need of civil defense.

The OCLA’s 2014 on-line petition to the state authority gathered over 1,400 signatures. OCLA also, in 2015, intervened by letter against other “civil liberties” associations that adopted a statement that harmed Mr. Topham’s case.

This year, OCLA intervened prior to the constitutional part of the trial by sending a letter directly to the trial judge, with all the state actors in cc. OCLA’s letter, reproduced below, spells out the illegal character of the criminal law being used in this particular show trial and witch hunt:

      January 13, 2016
      The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler, Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.[1]

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada:[2]

“And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.” [Emphasis added.]

Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of theCovenant protects freedom of expression:[3]

“2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”:[5]

“35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” [Emphasis added.][6]

The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.

The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.

Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.

In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.

And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:

“Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.”

Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 319(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”)[7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution.[8]

For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.

If the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.

Yours sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

[1] Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2] Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.
[4] Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5] General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6] Ibid., at para. 35.
[7] Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
[8] For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).

HEAR PAUL FROMM – THE ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL – VICTORIA, B.C. NOV. 28TH

HEAR PAUL FROMM – THE ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL – VICTORIA, B.C. NOV. 28TH

Part of CAFE’S mission is to encourage support for freedom of speech in Canada and to support the victims of censorship and minority-inspired persecution. Paul Fromm, CAFE Director, has undertaken an extensive speaking tour to discuss the Arthur Topham Trial. He has already spoken in Vancouver and Winnipeg with a number more locations planned.

P.FrommTophamTrialVictoria

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech Trial Opens in Quesnel, October 26

Dear Reader and Supporter of Free Speech in Canada.
There remains but three weeks before the trial begins which will determine the course of future events here in Canada with respect to a citizen’s Constitutional Right to freedom of expression.
I would ask of you that you please forward this post/notice to as many of your friends and associates as you can.
It would be great to see the courtroom filled with Canadians who believe in their right to freedom of speech.
Anyone thinking of attending the trial is welcome to contact me regarding accommodations and directions, etc. Unfortunately I won’t be able to host those planning to attend this event.
I can be reached via email at radical@radicalpress.com or via telephone at 1-250-992-3479.
Thank you for all your help and support!

 

Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
••••  ••••
 
Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial in October by making a donation.
 
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

Shame on Tim Horton’s

Shame on Tim Horton’s

Tim Horton’s is an iconic and very successful Canadian company. Personally, I like their coffee and prefer it to the wildly overpriced and bitter swill poured out at Starbucks, which, to add insult to injury is fanatically pro-homosexual and pro-Israel.

That being said, Tim Horton’s really disappoints.

1. It is notorious for using Temporary Foreign Workers instead of Canadians. I confronted the Board of Directors about this at their May, 2014 shareholders’ meeting in Toronto. They refused to give me an assurance that, in Canada, “they’d keep employment Canadian.”

2. In February of this year, CAFE exposed and denounced Tim Hortons for having filters in many of its restaurants that filter out “White supremacist” websites, oh, yes, and porn too, as an afterthought. You cannot access Stormfront or American Renaissance. CAFE’s protest resulted in a snotty insolent reply from corporate headquarters. Jon Domanko, Senior Corporate Counsel, provided this reply to a lawyer we asked to protest this policy to Tim Hortons: “In reference to your note below, let me respectively [he may mean ‘respectfully”!] decline your request to change the Tim Hortons Acceptable Use Policy as it relates to wifi available Tim Hortons Restaurants. As a private entity providing a wifi service to guests, it is our contention that it is entirely appropriate to request that guest expressly consent to be bound by the Acceptable Use Policy prior to using the wifi service. If our guests do not agree with the terms of the Acceptable Use Policy they are free not to use the service.” Contrary to Domanko’s assertion, this is not an honour system. Tim Hortons plain and simple has a censorship filter in place.

3. Now it’s clear Tim Hortons continues to censor access to certain sites, including Arthur Topham’s Rqadicalpress.com. I have sadly come to the conclusion that many Big Businesses are heartless and hostile to White interests. They are no friends of free speech or Canadian workers, but huge fans of cheap foreign labour. And have you noticed the shameless support and promotion of the homosexual agenda by our major banks and their advertising promoting and featuring miscegenation — mixed race couples.

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada

By
Arthur Topham

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada by Arthur Topham

Will it ever end? Everywhere we turn these day on the Internet someone is trying to censor you. Now it appears that one of Canada’s oldest coffee outlets, Tim Hortons, has also joined the Zionist Jews in deciding who they will allow their customers to visit online while they’re having coffee and a donut.

Over the past while I’ve had a number of readers email me telling me that when they’re in Tim Hortons they can’t access my website and when they try to they get the following message pop up on their screen:

“inappropriate content”???!!! Says who? Is there someone working in this coffee venue who sits and views every website on the net and makes some subjective, arbitrary decision that they don’t like RadicalPress.com and so they simply block it to spare their thousands of customers from seeing the site?

Well I certainly don’t think there’s anything “inappropriate” on my site and so on August 11, 2015 I sent an email to Tim Hortons at the address they provide in their pop-up window TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com saying:

Dear Tim Hortons WiFi,

It has been brought to my attention by a number of my readership both here in British Columbia and also in Alberta that when frequenting your coffee outlets they are unable to access my website RadicalPress.com.

Being a regular visitor to one of your outlets in Quesnel, British Columbia where I live and run my publishing business I have also experienced this. Here is a screen shot of what readers and I see when we go to visit my site and read articles and news stories which I have been publishing online for the past 16 years. (see above)

I am not sure where you have received your information that there is “inappropriate content” on my site but my educated guess is that whatever software you are using for your WiFi system has erroneously and/or possibly intentionally included my website for purely political reasons.

I have ran a publishing business here in British Columbia since June of 1998 and have been online since 1999. While Radical Press is known to be a part of the Alternative News media rather than the Mainstream media this does not imply that the content on my website is somehow “inappropriate”. It may be contrary to the Mainstream media but then that is perfectly legitimate in a free and democratic society such as Canada is.

I would therefore request that you please unblock my website so that your customers can not only enjoy your fine coffee but also whatever news sites that they, of their own free will, choose to visit while they are in your restaurant.

Since realizing that you are censoring my business I have stopped visiting my local Timmy’s and now spend my money at Starbucks instead. I would like to be able to buy your coffee and donuts as I have been doing for many many years but of course I expect you to respect my right to remain in business as well.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
radical@radicalpress.com
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

The next day, August 12, 2015 I received the following email from TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com:

Good day,

Thank you for your email.
We have received your request and it is in the process of being reviewed.

TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com

I immediately replied saying, “Thank you for your prompt reply. I will await your review.”

By August 16 I still had no response and so I wrote again saying:

Dear TimHortonsWiFi,

It is my understanding that you are in the coffee and food industry and not in the business of censoring websites that are legitimate business enterprises.

I feel that you’ve had more than sufficient time to come to what ought to be a very simple solution which is to unblock my site.

We in the Alternative News Media don’t take too kindly to harassment and censorship as that is the main reason why we exist because the mainstream media isn’t doing its job.

I will ask you civilly once again to unblock my site and should I not get a clear answer from you within 48 hours then you will have to bear the consequences of your irresponsible actions.

You have absolutely NO reason to be doing this and ought to be ashamed of your undemocratic, communist tactics.

The next day, August 17, I received an identical reply as I did the first time I contacted them telling me that my “request is in the process of being reviewed”.

Again I replied by stating:
It’s apparent that you either have a robot responding to my emails or else you are not serious in attending to my concerns regarding your censorship actions against my website.

As I stated I would like my site unblocked within 48 hours.

By August 19, 2015 there was still no reply forthcoming from TimHortons so I sent them one final email stating:

Dear TimHortons,

This is my final gesture of good will. You need to ask yourselves whether or not it’s worthwhile for you to be censoring other business’s websites.

I have yet to go online with my planned campaign of telling Canadians and the world at large about your illegal and unethical practises and the boycott of your business.

The following graphic is but a sample of what you will have to deal with.

Please reconsider your position and respond to me immediately or else I will take it that you are determined to block my site.
As of August 22, 2015 and numerous requests I’ve yet to hear back and so I’m taking my concerns online as I advised Tim Hortons.

Obviously whoever is in charge of dealing with blocked sites on Tim Hortons wifi is asleep at the wheel and in dire need of a Extra Large Triple Triple dark roast in order to wake them up.

This is where you, dear friends on Facebook and readers elsewhere can lend me a hand. It won’t cost you a cent. All you need to do is take a moment of your time and send Timmy a brief email asking them to unblock RadicalPress.com. When you do that please bcc me a copy of your email atradical@radicalpress.com so I can get an idea of how many requests are being sent to them.

I’m hoping that if they start to receive more requests than just from me that they will unblock the site.

Also, Tim Hortons is on Facebook as well so maybe those of you on FB might pop over to their page and post a comment regarding this matter.

Let’s see if we can help them to change their minds.

Tim Horton’s is an iconic and very successful Canadian company. Personally, I like their coffee and prefer it to the wildly overpriced and bitter swill poured out at Starbucks, which, to add insult to injury is fanatically pro-homosexual and pro-Israel.

That being said, Tim Horton’s really disappoints.

1. It is notorious for using Temporary Foreign Workers instead of Canadians. I confronted the Board of Directors about this at their May, 2014 shareholders’ meeting in Toronto. They refused to give me an assurance that, in Canada, “they’d keep employment Canadian.”

2. In February of this year, CAFE exposed and denounced Tim Hortons for having filters in many of its restaurants that filter out “White supremacist” websites, oh, yes, and porn too, as an afterthought. You cannot access Stormfront or American Renaissance. CAFE’s protest resulted in a snotty insolent reply from corporate headquarters. Jon Domanko, Senior Corporate Counsel, provided this reply to a lawyer we asked to protest this policy to Tim Hortons: “In reference to your note below, let me respectively [he may mean ‘respectfully”!] decline your request to change the Tim Hortons Acceptable Use Policy as it relates to wifi available Tim Hortons Restaurants. As a private entity providing a wifi service to guests, it is our contention that it is entirely appropriate to request that guest expressly consent to be bound by the Acceptable Use Policy prior to using the wifi service. If our guests do not agree with the terms of the Acceptable Use Policy they are free not to use the service.” Contrary to Domanko’s assertion, this is not an honour system. Tim Hortons plain and simple has a censorship filter in place.

3. Now it’s clear Tim Hortons continues to censor access to certain sites, including Arthur Topham’s Rqadicalpress.com. I have sadly come to the conclusion that many Big Businesses are heartless and hostile to White interests. They are no friends of free speech or Canadian workers, but huge fans of cheap foreign labour. And have you noticed the shameless support and promotion of the homosexual agenda by our major banks and their advertising promoting and featuring miscegenation — mixed race couples.


Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada

By
Arthur Topham

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada by Arthur Topham

Will it ever end? Everywhere we turn these day on the Internet someone is trying to censor you. Now it appears that one of Canada’s oldest coffee outlets, Tim Hortons, has also joined the Zionist Jews in deciding who they will allow their customers to visit online while they’re having coffee and a donut.

Over the past while I’ve had a number of readers email me telling me that when they’re in Tim Hortons they can’t access my website and when they try to they get the following message pop up on their screen:

“inappropriate content”???!!! Says who? Is there someone working in this coffee venue who sits and views every website on the net and makes some subjective, arbitrary decision that they don’t like RadicalPress.com and so they simply block it to spare their thousands of customers from seeing the site?

Well I certainly don’t think there’s anything “inappropriate” on my site and so on August 11, 2015 I sent an email to Tim Hortons at the address they provide in their pop-up window TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com saying:

Dear Tim Hortons WiFi,

It has been brought to my attention by a number of my readership both here in British Columbia and also in Alberta that when frequenting your coffee outlets they are unable to access my website RadicalPress.com.

Being a regular visitor to one of your outlets in Quesnel, British Columbia where I live and run my publishing business I have also experienced this. Here is a screen shot of what readers and I see when we go to visit my site and read articles and news stories which I have been publishing online for the past 16 years. (see above)

I am not sure where you have received your information that there is “inappropriate content” on my site but my educated guess is that whatever software you are using for your WiFi system has erroneously and/or possibly intentionally included my website for purely political reasons.

I have ran a publishing business here in British Columbia since June of 1998 and have been online since 1999. While Radical Press is known to be a part of the Alternative News media rather than the Mainstream media this does not imply that the content on my website is somehow “inappropriate”. It may be contrary to the Mainstream media but then that is perfectly legitimate in a free and democratic society such as Canada is.

I would therefore request that you please unblock my website so that your customers can not only enjoy your fine coffee but also whatever news sites that they, of their own free will, choose to visit while they are in your restaurant.

Since realizing that you are censoring my business I have stopped visiting my local Timmy’s and now spend my money at Starbucks instead. I would like to be able to buy your coffee and donuts as I have been doing for many many years but of course I expect you to respect my right to remain in business as well.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
radical@radicalpress.com
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

The next day, August 12, 2015 I received the following email from TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com:

Good day,

Thank you for your email.
We have received your request and it is in the process of being reviewed.

TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com

I immediately replied saying, “Thank you for your prompt reply. I will await your review.”

By August 16 I still had no response and so I wrote again saying:

Dear TimHortonsWiFi,

It is my understanding that you are in the coffee and food industry and not in the business of censoring websites that are legitimate business enterprises.

I feel that you’ve had more than sufficient time to come to what ought to be a very simple solution which is to unblock my site.

We in the Alternative News Media don’t take too kindly to harassment and censorship as that is the main reason why we exist because the mainstream media isn’t doing its job.

I will ask you civilly once again to unblock my site and should I not get a clear answer from you within 48 hours then you will have to bear the consequences of your irresponsible actions.

You have absolutely NO reason to be doing this and ought to be ashamed of your undemocratic, communist tactics.

The next day, August 17, I received an identical reply as I did the first time I contacted them telling me that my “request is in the process of being reviewed”.

Again I replied by stating:
It’s apparent that you either have a robot responding to my emails or else you are not serious in attending to my concerns regarding your censorship actions against my website.

As I stated I would like my site unblocked within 48 hours.

By August 19, 2015 there was still no reply forthcoming from TimHortons so I sent them one final email stating:

Dear TimHortons,

This is my final gesture of good will. You need to ask yourselves whether or not it’s worthwhile for you to be censoring other business’s websites.

I have yet to go online with my planned campaign of telling Canadians and the world at large about your illegal and unethical practises and the boycott of your business.

The following graphic is but a sample of what you will have to deal with.

Please reconsider your position and respond to me immediately or else I will take it that you are determined to block my site.
As of August 22, 2015 and numerous requests I’ve yet to hear back and so I’m taking my concerns online as I advised Tim Hortons.

Obviously whoever is in charge of dealing with blocked sites on Tim Hortons wifi is asleep at the wheel and in dire need of a Extra Large Triple Triple dark roast in order to wake them up.

This is where you, dear friends on Facebook and readers elsewhere can lend me a hand. It won’t cost you a cent. All you need to do is take a moment of your time and send Timmy a brief email asking them to unblock RadicalPress.com. When you do that please bcc me a copy of your email atradical@radicalpress.com so I can get an idea of how many requests are being sent to them.

I’m hoping that if they start to receive more requests than just from me that they will unblock the site.

Also, Tim Hortons is on Facebook as well so maybe those of you on FB might pop over to their page and post a comment regarding this matter.

Let’s see if we can help them to change their minds.

RCAF Veteran and Former Canadian Diplomat Ian Macdonald Blasts Tim Hortons & Backs Free Speech on WiFi for Arthur Topham & Radicalpress.com

RCAF Veteran and Former Canadian Diplomat Ian Macdonald Blasts Tim Hortons & Backs Free Speech on WiFi for Arthur Topham & Radicalpress.com

 
August 24, 2015
 
Manager, Public Relations
Tim Horton’s Inc
 
Dear Sir or Madame
 
Re:  censorship of WiFi content in Tim Horton’s outlets
 
Your company is well-known around the world as a genuine Canadian symbol and as such carries the responsibility of reflecting and supporting Canadian values.
 

 
One of the most important – if not the most important value – is freedom of speech.  Successive Governmentshave dedicated the country to its preservation and over one hundred thousand patriots have given their lives in its defence, including comrades and relatives of the writer.  For this hard fought freedom to be trashed by dubiously-motivated individuals who in all likelihood have sacrificed little or nothing in building a democratic society in Canada, is both a betrayal and an insult to your clients as well as your esteemed company and the country, especially Veterans.
 
 
 
I recommend strongly, therefore that you reconsider your censorship of Arthur Topham’s Radical Press. I know Arthur to be 100% patriotic, a conscientious freedom-fighter and righteous in all his endeavours.  He deserves acclaim, not abuse.
 
Yours truly,
 
Ian V. Macdonald
ex-RCAF
Canadian Foreign Service rtd
Member, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
Author “OTTAWA – the Golden Years” etc

New “Hate” Charge Files Against Topham: Defence Denied Statement of Particulars

New “Hate” Charge Files Against Topham: Defence Denied Statement of Particulars

Here’s the executive summary of this update in Arthur Topham and his Radicalpress.com’s battle against charges under Canada’s notorious thought control “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.)

1. Mr. Topham, a layman with no background in law, has been denied legal aid  in a Rowbotham Application. He must handle his defence in his preliminary hearing alone.

2. Just before the preliminary hearing was to start, January 22, he was charged with a third count of “hate”:
I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”   
Notice: There are no specifics as to which statements are deemed to have promoted hatred against this privileged group. It’s hard to organize a response or defence in a background. This is prosecution by ambush.

3. The Court refused to compel the Crown to produce Mr. Topham’s tormenters, complainants Richard   Warman and B’nai Brith operative Harry Abrams or the two “hate squad” investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas.)

4. The Court turned down Mr. Topham’s application for particulars on the two original counts: specifically, which posts were deemed to promote hatred against Jews.

5. Finally, with the full might of the State arrayed against an impoverished, unrepresented victim, wave the bully fist of further restrictions on him: Crown Counsel Johnson announced, writes Mr Topham, that “ after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry an application would then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.”|

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
 

 

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #16

January 16th, 2014

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

 

My last update of November 20th, 2013 focused mainly on the Rowbotham application that I had applied for in order to have Regina pay for a lawyer to defend me against her spurious sec. 319(2) “hate crime” charge that resulted in my arrest and incarceration back on May 16th, 2012. That application was refused by Judge Morgan after a hearing held in the Quesnel court house on November 18th.

Since that date I’ve been back in court a few more times on related matters the most recent being Tuesday, January 14th.

During the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing Judge Morgan brought up the matter of the particularization of the disclosure (the massive amount of purported “evidence” which the Crown intends to rely upon to justify their having charged and arrested me and stole all of my computers and firearms back in May of 2012). I had made an application to the court back on April 10th of 2013 asking for further particulars and that the Crown to be more specific as to just what articles, posts, etc. were the ones on the website which Regina felt were willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.”  After the Rowbotham application was refused I refiled the original April 10th, 2013 application asking the Judge to order Crown to further particularize the case.

That hearing took place on December 16th, 2013. Judge Morgan reserved his decision until I appeared again January 3rd, 2014 on another related matter. It was then that he handed down his Judgment in which he dismissed my application on the grounds that I was “seeking” “particulars relating to the Crown’s theory.” In the Judge’s estimation, “An order – as set out in his application – for the Crown to particularize the date and time and the exact statement or statements by which the alleged hatred was promoted would have the effect of limiting the Crown’s theory of the case; something that Krindle J. in Pangman (above) at paragraph 3, found there was no authority for and would amount to an extension of the existing law.”  It all sounds good in “theory” doesn’t it?

Following the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing I contacted Crown Counsel Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses that the Crown was planning to call for the Preliminary Inquiry set for January 22nd, 2014. Counsel informed me that she would only be calling one witness, Barry Salt, a forensic computer technician. More taxpayer money to be spent bringing someone up to Quesnel in order to “prove” that I was the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com a fact which I have never denied.

On December 2nd, 2013 I wrote another letter to CC Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses (or lack thereof) and that Crown was not planning to call either of the complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) nor the investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas). In that letter I wrote:

As I’m sure you are well aware the preliminary inquiry is an important opportunity for me to cross-examine witnesses and gather relevant evidence for pre-trial Charter applications in Supreme Court. Much of the necessary evidence for the Charter applications will be put on the record at that time and therefore I feel it behooves the Crown, in the interest of justice, to call those persons specified above for cross-examination by myself, or, in the event I am able to procure counsel in advance of the January 22nd date, my legal representative.
I never heard back from CC Johnston on this matter and so I filed another application on December 30th, 2013 stating the reasons as:
“The complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) and the police investigators (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas) are relevant and necessary witnesses for the purpose of the preliminary inquiry. The Crown is refusing to to call these witnesses. I respectfully request that the Crown be compelled to produce these witnesses.”
As a result a hearing date was set for January 3rd, 2014. During the hearing Crown argued that they didn’t have to produce any witnesses that they chose not to and downplayed the whole notion of the importance of the Preliminary Hearing process. I was given a fourteen page document indexed as: United States of America v. Shephard [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067. This document, according to both Judge Morgan and Crown Counsel Johnston, clearing showed that the threshold to be met in order to justify ordering a trial to be held was so low as to be practically impossible to refute. 
Prior to the January 3rd date the Judge had set another date of January 7th, 2014 for what is called a “focus hearing” which, translated into English, means a time to go over the ins and outs of what would be transpiring during the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on Jan. 22nd. He then decided to deal with that matter too on the 3rd and skip the Jan. 7th date. It was during this hearing that Judge Morgan addressed the issue of the thousands of emails which were still on my stolen computers and had not been returned to me. I told the judge that they were relevant to my defence and that they should be returned as part of the disclosure package which had already been returned some months ago. The judge concurred with my argument and after some discussion with Crown directed CC Johnston to contact Det. Cst. Wilson and have him return all of my email correspondence to me. He gave the Crown until January 14th to prepare a response to his recommendation and it was on that date that I was to return to court to find out the results. When I appeared on January 14th I learned that the emails had been downloaded to a file that was supposedly being sent up to the Crown’s office and that I would be notified as soon as it arrived. Judge Morgan told me to contact Crown Counsel’s office if I didn’t hear anything after a couple of days.
It was also on Jan. 14th that I first learned that Crown was also calling Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit to appear at the Preliminary Inquiry. Then, to top things off, came the sudden announcement by Crown Counsel Johnston that the Crown had filed a third count against me! It was a repeat of the original May 16th, 2012 sec. 319(2) CCC charge. This new indictment, known as “Count 3”, had received the consent of the Attorney General of British Columbia on the 31st of December, 2013 and was signed by Peter A. Juk, QC Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The reasons stated were that I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”
Having made this announcement to Judge Morgan and myself CC Johnston then added that nothing more would be forthcoming as a result of it until after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry when an application would then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.
One further thing needs to be added to this update prior to closing off. This morning, January 16th, 2014 I sent a letter to Crown Counsel Johnston informing her that I had subpoenaed two witnesses to appear in my defence for the Preliminary Inquiry slated for January 22nd, 2013.  In that letter I wrote:
“Please take notice that I have subpoenaed and will be calling two witnesses for the Preliminary Inquiry to be held on January 22nd, 2014.
Mr. Frank Frost will be appearing to testify on the urgency to maintain an alternative news media here in British Columbia in order to ensure that criminal activities on the part of the RCMP, the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s office (Crown) are exposed to the general public. Mr. Frost is a strong, knowledgeable advocate and expert witness in the areas of children and family advocacy and pedophilia within B.C.’s judiciary.
Mr. Lonny Landrud will also be appearing to testify on the importance of maintaining an alternative new media. Mr. Landrud is an expert, knowledgeable witness in the area of judicial misfeasance as it pertains to his own case. Mr. Landrud was witness to a murder of a young woman in Quesnel by RCMP officers and subsequent to reporting this heinous crime to the RCMP has been the subject of numerous attempts on his life by the RCMP. In one instance Mr. Landrud was forced to shoot, in self-defence, an RCMP officer who was attempting to murder him in his home. Since the advent of these events Mr. Landrud has been unable to have his case investigated at any level of government after years of sincere effort and the mainstream news media has refused to investigate or cover his plight. Mr. Landrud will be speaking to the court on the pressing need for an alternative news media that will and does cover his untold story.”
The next few days will be spent preparing for the Preliminary Inquiry. I will send out another update sometime after the 22nd and let readers know what transpired on that day.
For Peace, Freedom of Speech and Justice for All,
Arthur Topham

New Message
MinimizePop-outClose
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
 
*****
 
My court battle to retain the right to publish the truth about any and all injustices is a serious and costly effort and one critical to the future of all Canadians who wish to have the same rights and freedoms. Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.

New “Hate” Charge Files Against Topham: Defence Denied Statement of Particulars

New “Hate” Charge Files Against Topham: Defence Denied Statement of Particulars

Here’s the executive summary of this update in Arthur Topham and his Radicalpress.com’s battle against charges under Canada’s notorious thought control “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.)

1. Mr. Topham, a layman with no background in law, has been denied legal aid in a Rowbotham Application. He must handle his defence in his preliminary hearing alone.

2. Just before the preliminary hearing was to start, January 22, he was charged with a third count of “hate”:
I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” Notice: There are no specifics as to which statements are deemed to have promoted hatred against this privileged group. It’s hard to organize a response or defence in a background. This is prosecution by ambush.

3. The Court refused to compel the Crown to produce Mr. Topham’s tormenters, complainants Richard Warman and B’nai Brith operative Harry Abrams or the two “hate squad” investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas.)

4. The Court turned down Mr. Topham’s application for particulars on the two original counts: specifically, which posts were deemed to promote hatred against Jews.

5. Finally, with the full might of the State arrayed against an impoverished, unrepresented victim, wave the bully fist of further restrictions on him: Crown Counsel Johnson announced, writes Mr Topham, that ” after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry an application would then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.”|

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #16 January 16th, 2014

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #16January 16th, 2014

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

My last update of November 20th, 2013 focused mainly on the Rowbotham application that I had applied for in order to have Regina pay for a lawyer to defend me against her spurious sec. 319(2) “hate crime” charge that resulted in my arrest and incarceration back on May 16th, 2012. That application was refused by Judge Morgan after a hearing held in the Quesnel court house on November 18th.
Since that date I’ve been back in court a few more times on related matters the most recent being Tuesday, January 14th.
During the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing Judge Morgan brought up the matter of the particularization of the disclosure (the massive amount of purported “evidence” which the Crown intends to rely upon to justify their having charged and arrested me and stole all of my computers and firearms back in May of 2012). I had made an application to the court back on April 10th of 2013 asking for further particulars and that the Crown to be more specific as to just what articles, posts, etc. were the ones on the website which Regina felt were willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.” After the Rowbotham application was refused I refiled the original April 10th, 2013 application asking the Judge to order Crown to further particularize the case.
That hearing took place on December 16th, 2013. Judge Morgan reserved his decision until I appeared again January 3rd, 2014 on another related matter. It was then that he handed down his Judgment in which he dismissed my application on the grounds that I was “seeking” “particulars relating to the Crown’s theory.” In the Judge’s estimation, “An order – as set out in his application – for the Crown to particularize the date and time and the exact statement or statements by which the alleged hatred was promoted would have the effect of limiting the Crown’s theory of the case; something that Krindle J. in Pangman (above) at paragraph 3, found there was no authority for and would amount to an extension of the existing law.” It all sounds good in “theory” doesn’t it?
Following the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing I contacted Crown Counsel Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses that the Crown was planning to call for the Preliminary Inquiry set for January 22nd, 2014. Counsel informed me that she would only be calling one witness, Barry Salt, a forensic computer technician. More taxpayer money to be spent bringing someone up to Quesnel in order to “prove” that I was the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com a fact which I have never denied.
On December 2nd, 2013 I wrote another letter to CC Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses (or lack thereof) and that Crown was not planning to call either of the complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) nor the investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas). In that letter I wrote:
As I’m sure you are well aware the preliminary inquiry is an important opportunity for me to cross-examine witnesses and gather relevant evidence for pre-trial Charter applications in Supreme Court. Much of the necessary evidence for the Charter applications will be put on the record at that time and therefore I feel it behooves the Crown, in the interest of justice, to call those persons specified above for cross-examination by myself, or, in the event I am able to procure counsel in advance of the January 22nd date, my legal representative.

I never heard back from CC Johnston on this matter and so I filed another application on December 30th, 2013 stating the reasons as:

“The complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) and the police investigators (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas) are relevant and necessary witnesses for the purpose of the preliminary inquiry. The Crown is refusing to to call these witnesses. I respectfully request that the Crown be compelled to produce these witnesses.”

As a result a hearing date was set for January 3rd, 2014. During the hearing Crown argued that they didn’t have to produce any witnesses that they chose not to and downplayed the whole notion of the importance of the Preliminary Hearing process. I was given a fourteen page document indexed as: United States of America v. Shephard [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067. This document, according to both Judge Morgan and Crown Counsel Johnston, clearing showed that the threshold to be met in order to justify ordering a trial to be held was so low as to be practically impossible to refute.

Prior to the January 3rd date the Judge had set another date of January 7th, 2014 for what is called a “focus hearing” which, translated into English, means a time to go over the ins and outs of what would be transpiring during the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on Jan. 22nd. He then decided to deal with that matter too on the 3rd and skip the Jan. 7th date. It was during this hearing that Judge Morgan addressed the issue of the thousands of emails which were still on my stolen computers and had not been returned to me. I told the judge that they were relevant to my defence and that they should be returned as part of the disclosure package which had already been returned some months ago. The judge concurred with my argument and after some discussion with Crown directed CC Johnston to contact Det. Cst. Wilson and have him return all of my email correspondence to me. He gave the Crown until January 14th to prepare a response to his recommendation and it was on that date that I was to return to court to find out the results. When I appeared on January 14th I learned that the emails had been downloaded to a file that was supposedly being sent up to the Crown’s office and that I would be notified as soon as it arrived. Judge Morgan told me to contact Crown Counsel’s office if I didn’t hear anything after a couple of days.

It was also on Jan. 14th that I first learned that Crown was also calling Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit to appear at the Preliminary Inquiry. Then, to top things off, came the sudden announcement by Crown Counsel Johnston that the Crown had filed a third count against me! It was a repeat of the original May 16th, 2012 sec. 319(2) CCC charge. This new indictment, known as “Count 3”, had received the consent of the Attorney General of British Columbia on the 31st of December, 2013 and was signed by Peter A. Juk, QC Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The reasons stated were that I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Having made this announcement to Judge Morgan and myself CC Johnston then added that nothing more would be forthcoming as a result of it until after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry when an application would then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.

One further thing needs to be added to this update prior to closing off. This morning, January 16th, 2014 I sent a letter to Crown Counsel Johnston informing her that I had subpoenaed two witnesses to appear in my defence for the Preliminary Inquiry slated for January 22nd, 2013. In that letter I wrote:

“Please take notice that I have subpoenaed and will be calling two witnesses for the Preliminary Inquiry to be held on January 22nd, 2014.

Mr. Frank Frost will be appearing to testify on the urgency to maintain an alternative news media here in British Columbia in order to ensure that criminal activities on the part of the RCMP, the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s office (Crown) are exposed to the general public. Mr. Frost is a strong, knowledgeable advocate and expert witness in the areas of children and family advocacy and pedophilia within B.C.’s judiciary.

Mr. Lonny Landrud will also be appearing to testify on the importance of maintaining an alternative new media. Mr. Landrud is an expert, knowledgeable witness in the area of judicial misfeasance as it pertains to his own case. Mr. Landrud was witness to a murder of a young woman in Quesnel by RCMP officers and subsequent to reporting this heinous crime to the RCMP has been the subject of numerous attempts on his life by the RCMP. In one instance Mr. Landrud was forced to shoot, in self-defence, an RCMP officer who was attempting to murder him in his home. Since the advent of these events Mr. Landrud has been unable to have his case investigated at any level of government after years of sincere effort and the mainstream news media has refused to investigate or cover his plight. Mr. Landrud will be speaking to the court on the pressing need for an alternative news media that will and does cover his untold story.”

The next few days will be spent preparing for the Preliminary Inquiry. I will send out another update sometime after the 22nd and let readers know what transpired on that day.

For Peace, Freedom of Speech and Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
New Message

To cafe (cafe@canadafirst.net)

Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

*****

My court battle to retain the right to publish the truth about any and all injustices is a serious and costly effort and one critical to the future of all Canadians who wish to have the same rights and freedoms. Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.