Tag Archives: Richard Warman

Update on McCorkill Case where Judge can Throw Out Your Will for Giving to Politically Incorrect Causes

Posted on by

Preview YouTube video Update on McCorkill Case where Judge can Throw Out Your Will


This is the first video in the history of planet Earth where Paul Fromm and Brian Ruhe made a long distance video by Skype, on June 4, 2016. Paul has been the director of the Canadian Association for Freedom of Expression (CAFE) since 1983 and this is the next in a series of videos on the McCorkill case.

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

__ Here’s my special donation of _____ to help CAFE pay off its legal bills in theMcCorkill Will Appeal which is now awaiting “leave” from the Supreme Court,
__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.
__ Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_______________________________________
Expiry date: ______ Signature:__________________________________________________

Name:______________________________________________________________________
Address:_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ _____

Email___________________________________

OR, visit CAFE`s website and donate by PayPal. http://cafe.nfshost.com

Most Important Property Rights Case of the Decade: McCorkill Will Heads to Supreme Court? — Part 1 & Disgraceful Trudeau Apology for Komagata Maru

Posted on by

Most Important Property Rights Case of the Decade: McCorkill Will Heads to Supreme Court? — Part 1 & Disgraceful Trudeau Apology for Komagata Maru

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presents

Paul Fromm

Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994

Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression

Most Important Property Rights Case of the Decade: McCorkill Will Heads to Supreme Court?

*New developments in McCorkill free speech case

* More persecution of dissent across the country – Brian Ruhe, Your Ward News, Arthur Topham

 

28:18

Most Important Property Rights Case of the Decade: McCorkill Will Heads to Supreme Court? – 1 of 4

Warman Files Human Rights Complaint to Stop Distribution of YOUR WARD NEWS

Posted on by

Warman Files Human Rights Complaint to Stop Distribution of YOUR WARD NEWS

http://www.citynews.ca/…/video-human-rights-complaint-file…/

Dr. James Sears says:”I don’t believe in the Hollywood narrative of WW II”

“Political Correctness is a form of mind control,”

An Ottawa human rights lawyer has filed a human right complaint for the controversial Your Ward News newspaper.
citynews.ca

Warman’s At It Again: Wants Canada Post to Stop Distributing Your Ward News

Posted on by
Warman’s At It Again: Wants Canada Post to Stop Distributing Your Ward News

Let’s see, Ontario’s eccentric courts say I can’t refer to Richard Warman as the “high priest of censorship.” So, okay, this meddling lawyer, ensconced doing something or other in the Department of National Defence, doesn’t want Torontonians to be able to receive a community tabloid entitled Your Ward News through the mail. The politically correct long ago ceased debating with those who have a problem with the homosexual agenda, multiculturalism or the self-serving Hollyweird version of WW II. Disagree with them and they want to gag you and shut you down.

Local leftists, including sometime Liberal Party backroom boy Warren Kinsella, have been gunning for Your Ward News for over a year. the Main Street offices of the tabloid have had their windows smashed numerous times by the apostles of “tolerance” and “inclusion”. Then, about a year ago, the critics flipped out and tried to pressure Canada Post not to deliver the satirical tabloid. Some posties from the notoriously leftist Postal Workers Union, which for years has has a significant contingent of Maoists, threatened they would not deliver it. The complain that it is “hate” Even under Canada’s notorious “hate” law, the accused must still be afforded a trial before his writings can be declared hate.

In a healthier society, the critics would be urged to write a letter-to-the-editor, start a paper of their own, or, if they are offended beyond all endurance when Your Ward News arrives in the mail, they can simply toss it into the Blue Box for recycling. However, we live in a mean, Puritanical society assailed by domineering followers of political correctness who want to gag all dissent from their agenda.

So, along comes Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman. Your Ward News is delivered in the eastern part of Toronto. Almost certainly Mr. Warman didn’t find an unwanted copy delivered by the mailman. So, in the normal scheme of things, what’s it to him?

Anyway, he’s taken to letter writing to try to pressure Canada Post into not delivering Your Ward Newsbecause some of its views and irreverence don’t please Warman’s Ottawa sensitivities.

National Observer (March 8, 2016), an online news commentary, reports: “A prominent Ottawa human rights lawyer is after Canada Post to drop distribution of a newsletter that he says contains misogynist, homophobic, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate propaganda.

Richard Warman wrote Public Works Minister Judy Foote and Canada Post president Deepak Chopra in early March to ask for a halt to the postal distribution of a Toronto publication called Your Ward News.
Warman told National Observer that the newsletter was something he was aware of that was floating around the Toronto area.

“It had sort of a bad smell. When I finally had the chance to look at it closely, I was shocked to see the kind of bigotry that was being disseminated through Canada Post.”

In an email response to National Observer Tuesday, Foote said, “I have reviewed some of the material in question and I too find it highly offensive and well outside the norm of Canadian values. I have reached out to my colleagues to determine the best way forward in addressing this issue.

“This includes whether the material constitutes an offense under the Criminal Code.”

Your Ward News claims distribution of 300,000 and a readership of one million within Toronto. Canada Post delivers the publication unwrapped, meaning anyone is able to see the content.

The most recent issue of the quarterly publication (it was previously monthly) shows on its cover a bizarre collage of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau surrounded by women in bikinis. Beside him, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne waves a gay pride flag.

Two men are depicted on crosses, one of them clearly meant to be Christ; the other sprays blood on former advisor to Jean Chretien, Warren Kinsella, and in a word balloon says, “See you in hell, Kinsella!”

The entire spectacle is headlined “Marxist Lackeys Attack.”

Inside, the paper contains a number of racist slurs directed mostly against Jews and Muslims. The back page invites people to attend “The 1st Annual Old-Fashioned Toronto Anti-Marxist Book-Burning.”

The purported ad states that among books welcome to be burned are “FemiMarxist garbage by authors like Margaret Atwood; EnviroMarxist Agenda 21 propaganda by scientific sellouts like David Suzuki, etc.” ….

“In his letter, Warman tells Canada Post that he is concerned the Crown corporation’s distribution of the newsletter might constitute a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act as the agency is “party to the dissemination of discriminatory material to the general public.”

Warman warns the Crown corporation that if it persists in distribution of the paper, “I will pursue the matter accordingly,” and cites, among other things, an example of defamatory libel in the newsletter against Warren and Lisa Kinsella.” …. [Actually, Your Ward News is a tabloid newspaper, not a newsletter.]

“While Warman’s letter is the most recent attempt to have Canada Post stop delivery of Your Ward News, it’s not the first time.
In May 2015, Arthur Potts, the Ontario MPP for Toronto’s Beaches-East York riding sent a letter to Canada Post’s Chopra asking the Crown corporation to reconsider its delivery of the newsletter.

In his letter, Potts noted that Toronto’s Hate Crimes Unit was probing a complaint about the then-current issue of Your Ward News, which featured “several offensive and anti-Semitic articles and caricatures.”

The Toronto Hate Crimes Unit could not be reached for comment. It’s not known whether the paper is still under investigation at this time.

Potts wrote that he was not only deeply concerned by the paper’s content and his constituents’ complaints, but added the fact that Canada Post delivered the paper, despite repeated complaints, “suggests that the Crown corporation may endorse its content.”

Canada Post did not respond to National Observer’s queries. The Crown corporation operates at arm’s-length from the government.

Megan Whitfield, the president of the Toronto Local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, told National Observer that a number of postal workers have complained about having to deliver the publication.

However, Whitfield said Canada Post has threatened to discipline any workers who refuse to carry the newsletter.

“Both on the cover and inside they’ve had some very offensive material,” Whitfield said of the publication. At the very least the Toronto Local wants to see the publication shrink-wrapped in dark plastic so that the contents can’t be seen in the mail.
Of Canada Post, Whitfield said: “They just continue to allow it to go through.”

Ottawa human rights lawyer, Richard Warman. Photo courtesy of Richard Warman

Hopeful News in the McCorkill Case: Chances Improve of Getting to the Supreme Court

Posted on by

Hopeful News in the McCorkill Case: Chances Improve of Getting to the Supreme Court

Good news and bad news. CAFÉ’s chances of winning “leave” or acceptance of the Supreme Court to appeal the appalling decision of Mr. Justice Grant of the Court of Queen’s Bench in New Brunswick and upheld last July by the Court of Appeals of New Brunswick have vastly improved. That’s the good news. CAFÉ’s chances of being granted leave to appeal have improved. That’s the bad news because an appeal in ferociously expensive. Our appeal costs could soar to $60,000 and we are behind in our bills.

The McCorkill case is vital to freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights. Should a court be able to nullify a will or bequest because the recipient’s views are “contrary to public policy”? The late Robert McCorkill of St. John, New Brunswick was a professor of chemistry and left his sizable estate of old coins and rare artifacts to the U.S.  White Nationalist group known as the National Alliance.

Inline image 1

Professor McCorkill died in 2004. The estate was finally probated in 2013. Then, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a malicious group of U.S. censors who make a profitable business of spying on, exposing and legally harassing those they claim are “haters”, found out and raised a storm. The usual hysterical stuff: the bequest would revive the “Nazi” movement in the U.S. And, yes, there’d be a gas chamber on every other corner. The only problem was that the SPLC had no legal standing in Canada. However, the next thing we knew, Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman got into the act and declared that the bequest was “contrary to public policy.” At first, this seemed absurd. However, miraculously Isabel McCorkell [yes, different spelling], the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill – she had not attended his funeral or challenged his will during the probate proceedings – surfaced. Interestingly, she lived in Ottawa. She sought and obtained an order to freeze the proceeds until she could make an application to have the will nullified on the grounds that it was … “contrary to public policy.” She was quickly joined in her endeavours by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. At this point, CAFÉ sought and was granted intervener status. This is clearly a vital case on several levels. It is a case defending freedom of speech and freedom of belief. It is also upholding property rights. Should a judge be able to overturn the clear wishes of a testator? Should a person not be able to dispose of his property as he sees fit and not have the views or morals of his beneficiaries scrutinized by a judge?

Last September, CAFÉ sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Only about one in 10 applications for leave are granted. The SCC seeks cases that have a national interest. Surely, some degree of certainty in estate law would constitute such a national interest. That was our argument. However, this argument was greatly strengthened recently by a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeals in the Spence case. Rev. Eric Spence was a Jamaican preacher who left all of his $400,000 estate to one daughter, whom he hadn’t seen in 30 years, and left nothing to Verolin, the daughter he’d raised and financed through university, because she’d had a child with a White man. In January, 2015, as we had predicted in our arguments before the Court of Queen’s Bench, the McCorkill decision would be the beginning of a flood of allegations. Verolin successfully had her father’s will nullified. Judge Cory. A Gilmore inveighed against
Spence’s “clearly stated racist principle” and declared that the will “not only offended human sensibilities but also public policy”. She then nullified the will as being “contrary to public policy.” BMO Trust, on behalf of the Spence Estate, appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeals. In a March 8 decision , the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned, Judge Gilmore’s decision, and reinstated the will’s provisions. This decision is immensely helpful should our case reach the Supreme Court.

Some key points from the appeal:
 
* Proceeding by affidavit flawed: “In support of the application, Verolin filed her own affidavit, together with an affidavit sworn by Imogene Parchment … who had acted as Eric’s occasional caregiver. … Neither Verolin nor Imogene were cross-examined on their affidavits (13). … The application judge erred by embarking on a public policy-based review pf thje impugned terms of Eric’s will and that she further erred by admitting the Extrinsic Evidence entered in this case. It follows tat I would allow the appeal. (113) This finding is most helpful because the entire McCorkill application was heard using only “extrinsic evidence” in the form of affidavits. None of the deponents was cross-examined. CAFE’s lawyer Andy Lodge succeeded in getting some affidavits struck, but a number of fiery ones filled with accusations against the National Alliance remained as part of the record.
 
* BMO’s arguments on behalf of the Spence Estate. “BMO Trust … submits that the application judge erred by placing any weight on the Extrinsic Evidence. … BMO Trust argues that the application judge unjustifiably interfered with Eric, testamentary freedom, which allows him to distribute his property as he chooses. … Allowing the application judge’s decision to stand would increase uncertainty is estate law and open the floodgates to litigation in estates matters.” (24-26) This latter argument was also forcefully made by CAFE both before the Court of Queen’s Bench and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal,
 
* Testamentary Freedom, “A testator;s freedom to distribute [his] property as [he] chooses is a deeply entrenched common law principle.” (30) “he Supreme Court has also recognized the importance of testamentary autonomy, holding that it should not be interfered with lightly, but only in so far as the law requires.” (31)
 
* The Court noted that the Spence will was a private trust. There were no behaviour actions required of the beneficiary. “Eric’s residual bequest imposes no conditions or stipulations. “The courts have recognized various categories of cases where public policy may be invoked to void a conditional testamentary gift” (like marrying a particular person, celibacy, or membership in a particular church) (55) There were no such conditions in either the Spence will or the McCorkill will.
 
* There is strong criticism of the reasoning in the McCorkill decision. McCorkill found “this authority extends to cases where the terms of the bequest do not include discriminatory conditions bu evidence is tendered that a testator’s alleged motive is making the bequest offends public policy. I see no support in the established jurisprudence for the acceptance of such an open-ended invitation to enlarge the scope of the public policy doctrine in estates cases.” (58) McCorkill extends the law dangerously. “Prior to McCorkill, public policy based justification for judicial interference with a testator’s freedom to dispose of [his] property had been advanced only in respect of conditional testamentary gifts. In McCorkill, as in this case, the testator’s residual gift was absolute, not conditional.” (62) “However, Professor Ziff [Bruce Ziff, “Welcome to the Newest Unworthy heir”] acknowledges that, even in unworthy heir cases like McCorkill, the invocation of public policy considerations to void an unconditional testamentary bequest may overreach the proper ambit of the public policy doctrine. ‘The more challenging problem with McCorkill is that it may be overbroad.'”
 
* Neither the Spence nor the McCorkill bequests offend the Charter or provincial human rights acts. “Neither the Ontario Human Rights Code … nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to justify court interference with the testator’s intentions. the Human Rights Code, of course, ensures that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to service,s good and facilities without discrimination based on race … the Charter pertains to state action. Neither reaches testamentary disposition of a private nature.” (74) This would seem to apply to McCorkill, as well.
 

 

* this conclusion would seem to be very applicable to McCorkill: “The desire to guard against a testator’s unsavoury or distasteful testamentary dispositions cannot be allowed to overtake testamentary freedom. The need for a robust application of the principle of testamentary freedom is especially impoirtant … in the context of a testator’s central right to choose his or her residual beneficiaries.” (85)


And, there’s more. Now, there seems to be a contradiction between the Courts of Appeal in New Brunswick and Ontario; the former was quick to overturn the testator’s wishes as the recipient’s views were “contrary to public policy”; the Ontario court refused to overturn the will even though it did involve a degree of racial discrimination. Acting on behalf of Verolin Spence, Earl A. Cherniak advised Andy Lodge, CAFÉ’s lawyer: “Given the similarities of the issues to be decided on the application for leave to appeal in McCorkill and the issues we intend to raise in the Spence matter, we ask that the Panel considering the application for leave in  McCorkill be advised that we will be seeking leave to appeal and will … be bringing a motion to expedite leave.” CAFÉ has agreed that the Spence appeal can be joined to ours, if the Court so wishes. This strengthens our chances of being granted  leave.

This Spring will extremely expensive for CAFÉ. The issues of property rights and freedom of speech and belief are crucial. We need your help urgently! A tiny band of generous, loyal people like you have made this crucial battle possible thus far.

Please send your most generous contribution today.

My thanks, fellow free speech supporter,

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
__________________
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal which is now awaiting “leave” from the Supreme Court,
__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.
__  Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#____________________________________________________________
Expiry date: ______ Signature:______________________________________________________________________

Name:__________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

 

NO JUSTICE FOR DISSIDENT WHATCOTT IN CBC LIBEL APPEAL

Posted on by

   NO JUSTICE FOR DISSIDENT WHATCOTT IN CBC     LIBEL APPEAL

Canada’s courts are dominated by judges holding to a Cultural Marxist ideology. In their world, people are divided into “vulnerable minorities” who must be protected from criticism and oppressors. Near the very top of their “vulnerable minority” hit parade are homosexuals and the whole LGBTQ-alphabet soup of the sexually unusual. A strong critic for over 20 years of the homosexual agenda is Bill Whatcott. Beggared, jailed, fined, ruined by a homosexual led boycott of his carpet cleaning business, Mr. Whatcot t is nothing if not a fighter.


He won a libel action against the CBC for their deliberate distortion of his words. Good for him. However, the short-lived victory, was substantially reversed with an additional punishing kick in the kidneys, saddling him with the CBC’s costs.


The Saskatchewan Court of Appeals upheld the finding of libel but slashed the $30,000 award to a measly $1,000 and essentially cancelled it by awarding costs against Whatcott. An appeal can run $10,000 – $40,000 easily. So, even in winning, partially, Mr. Whatcott, the real victim, loses.


The decision written by Neal Caldwell concluded: “There is simply no evidence upon which to quantify or begin to assess the level of damages in this case. For this reason, although the Chambers judge’s finding of defamation attracts a presumptive award of damages, the absence of evidence of the effect of the defamation that occurred here limits that to an award of nominal damages only. The appeal is allowed in part. The finding of defamation is not subject to appellate reversal. The judge’s findings with respect to the extent of publication and actual malice are set\ aside, as is the award of aggravated damages. The award of compensatory general damages is reduced to the nominal amount of $1,000. Since the CBC was substantially successful, it shall have its costs in this appeal in the usual manner.”


The Court of Appeals is advancing the novel proposition that it is hard to know how big an audience CBC News has or what influence, if any its stories, have. Thus, so the bowel twister of an argument goes, there is no proof Mr. Whatcott suffered any damage. If the CBC really has such a small audience and so little influence, this is a sad commentary on decades of taxpayer $billion+ annual subsidy for this leftist propaganda agency.


Interestingly, in the CAFE/Fromm’s libel case, where we were sued for defamation by Richard Warman for, among other things, calling him “the high priest of censorship”, the Court gladly awarded $40,000 in damages, even though our words were circulated on relatively obscure websites, not blared over Canada’s national news network. In that case, Judge Monique Metivier seemed convinced that Warman’s reputation had been damaged by our merely uttering these words. It’s flattering but not convincing to believe that our writings are more powerful than the multi-billion dollar foghorn of the CBC. Actually, this is just another case of our leftists courts beating up on a pesky Christian; namely, Bill Whatcott.


The National Post (February 26, 2016) provides more detail to the story: In Saskatchewan, “he province’s top court has significantly cut the amount of money the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has to pay for defaming anti-gay crusader Bill Whatcott. Originally ordered to pay Whatcott $30,000, the CBC is now on the hook for only $1,000 after a partial win before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
“While I find no cogent basis to set aside the finding of defamation, I would nevertheless intervene and reduce the general damages awarded in this matter to a nominal amount,” Justice Neal Caldwell wrote on behalf of the court. ….

The issue dates back to October 2011 when the CBC published a report on The National and its website about a case involving Whatcott that was before the Supreme Court of Canada. It stemmed from a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling regarding Whatcott’s battle with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission over anti-gay pamphlets he distributed in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002.

The CBC report included a pan of one of Whatcott’s pamphlets — but not the one that was at issue in the human rights case. Rather, it was one Whatcott had distributed in Alberta in 2008. The CBC showed the side of the pamphlet with lyrics to a song that Whatcott had modified to read, “Kill the Homosexual.” On the reverse side, which the CBC didn’t show, “Whatcott had purported to disclaim or exculpate himself from liability for its inflammatory content, suggesting that he did not truly advocate the murder of homosexuals,” the decision notes.
(Don Healy / Leader-Post)Bill Whatcott handing out flyers at the University of Regina on March 6, 2013.

Whatcott sued, claiming that CBC’s depiction of the pamphlet would cause viewers to believe he advocated murdering homosexual people.
In January 2015 Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Richard Elson agreed, finding the CBC had misrepresented the pamphlet in its four-minute news segment. He awarded Whatcott $20,000 in general damages and an additional $10,000 in aggravated damages after finding the broadcaster had acted with malice.
The CBC appealed, arguing Elson had made several legal errors.

The mere fact the CBC had published a defamatory news segment does not serve to increase the measure of general damages or to justify an award of aggravated damages.

“While the defamatory nature of the news segment is open to some interpretation, I cannot conclude that the judge’s interpretation of it as defamatory was either unreasonable or borne of an error of law,” wrote Caldwell in a decision made unanimous by Justices Ralph Ottenbreit and Maurice Herauf. Elson had found the CBC’s focus on a single, offensive phrase conveyed the impression Whatcott’s activism was more extreme that it actually was and would “tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.”

However, the court did determine Elson erred in other findings.
Caldwell said the judge had no evidence about the scope of the publication so erred in assessing damages. The court said Whatcott was responsible for making his case, and “it was not for the judge to fill in the gaps with speculation.”

Whatcott had also failed to provide proof of actual malice, and Elson had made inferences based on “scant evidence,” said Caldwell.
“The mere fact the CBC had published a defamatory news segment does not serve to increase the measure of general damages or to justify an award of aggravated damages,” wrote Caldwell.”

HARRY ABRAMS (Complainant in Arthur Topham Case) SPEAKS

Posted on by

HARRY ABRAMS (Complainant in Arthur Topham Case) SPEAKS

Harry Abrams is the Victoria voice of B’nai Brith one of Canada’s leading anti-free speech groups and, as defence lawyer Barclay Johnson pointed out at the recent Arthur Topham trial, a lobby for a foreign power — Israel. So, people associated with a lobby group dedicated to supporting a foreign power make judicial war on a Canadian critic of that power.
 
 In 2007, when Arthur Topham turned the focus of his website radicalpress.com — check it out before the thought police order it taken down — he almost immediately came under attack by thought control freak Harry Abrams. He launched a “human rights complaint” under the notorious Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. CAFE intervened on his behalf. However, before a tribunal could be convened the section was repealed. In 2012, Abrams, now joined by the champion human rights complaint filer under the old Sec. 13, Richard Warman, filed a complaint with the B.C. Hate Squad, fortuitously headed up by another free speech foe and former London thought police cop Terry Wilson. Needless to say, he hopped to it and Arthur was “investigated” and charged under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code; to wit, “willfully promoting hatred against a privileged minority” — in this case Jews.
 
Neither Warman nor Abrams bothered to attend the 12-day trial (October 26 to November 12) resulting from their complaint. They just do their mischief and let the cops and courts inflict maximum pain on dissidents.
 
The following material appeared November 15 on the Anti-Racist Canada website. Here Abrams thanks all the people who helped him persecute Arthur Topham, including B’nai Brith lawyers like Marvin Kurz and Anita Bromberg. Poor Richard Warman hasn’t received the kudos Abrams feels he deserves in the judicial takedown of Arthur Topham. [Boo, hoo, we’ve run out of Kleenex.]
 
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
Free Speech martyr Arthur Topham
 
 
 
Abrams boasts of a number of campaigns to shut other people down. He’s currently trying to impoverish Vancouver Buddhist lecturer Brian Ruhe for publishing historical revisionist videos. He boasts (elsewhere) of contacting Ruhe’s employers and getting him fire.
 
Erroneously, Abrams says that the evil book Germany Must Perish was obscure WW II Allied propaganda that no one had ever heard of. It was not Allied propaganda. It was written by a U.S. Jew Theodore Kaufman and was his blueprint for the eradication of Germans after WW II by mass sterilization. Abrams knew  Arthur Topham’s take-off on this book, Israel Must Perish was a satire. He said so, the Arthur Topham trial learned, when he was interviewed by Det. Const. Wilson. The fiery passages Abrams quotes are from this satire. They are meant to criticize the book  Germany Must Perish, not seriously to suggest genocide of Jews. Det. Const. Wilson said he’d been aware of Germany Must Perish. Of course, as Germans are not a privileged minority, this book has never been the subject of prosecution in Canada.
 
More than ever, free men and free women need liberation from thought control laws like Sec. 319, Canada’s “hate law.”
Repeal all hate laws!
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

 Harry Abrams also writes the following on the subject:

Arthur Topham – Guilty!

Undated ( 1970’s?) photo posted to Topham’s Facebook page


“…Topham’s bizarre antisemitic conspiracy theories and his repeated demonization of the Jewish people are far beyond the limits of what civil society would consider to be protected speech. While we recognize that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society, Topham’s postings crossed a line when he began to actively assert the need for genocide of the Jewish people…” – B’nai Brith Canada

Harry thank you for bringing Topham to everyone’s attention. Here the system has worked as it should. – Marvin Kurz


These above are my 2 favourite headlines so far. The decision just didn’t seem to sink in for me until I finally could  read it in the national mainstream news, and for this once, I think that the main outlets covering the story, both understood and conveyed the significance of why this needed to be done, and how freedom of speech in a democracy can never be totally open-ended…or else we risk losing our civilization.

More wherefores and why-fores in a moment, but first I would like to offer some acknowledgements and thanks.

Detective Terry Wilson and Corporal Normandie Levas and the BC Hate Crimes Team. Without these skilled, principled and above all, dedicated Peace officers, we never would have had this show. Det. Wilson, who led the investigation would have been the first (after myself and the B’nai Brith legal ensemble) to  recognize the complaint for what it was, and make the critical decision to proceed,  knowing with certainty that  we had  a textbook  criminal case.

Richard Warman of Ottawa.   See:    www.richardwarman.ca

It’s been something of a shame that Richard hasn’t received much notice in all of the coverage I’ve seen so far, because he also filed  similar complaints all along.  I’d like to see him receive a few laurel leaves. He’s taken personal risks and worked very hard and has been an admirable steadfast colleague for many years.

B’nai Brith Canada A special thank you to Anita Bromberg, then in-house lawyer at the office in Toronto, and of course legal counsels Marvin Kurz in Brampton, Ont. and David Matas in Winnipeg, Man.,  both of whom oversaw my work and preparation, pro bono.

Antiracism Experts: Alan Dutton  of Vancouver and Helmut Harry Loewen in Winnipeg. Thank you fellows!! For all of your support and years of commiseration!

http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/     This unique collective has been of invaluable assistance to all Canadians in getting the word out  and archiving important developments and files on key personalities. See  their sections on Paul Fromm and Doug Christie too…

Why Topham and Radicalpress.com?

By 2006  the phenomenon  of  internet blogs and interactive websites and chatboards had absolutely exploded.

Not only was it a whole new era of instant feedback to news outlets, but any person, with only even a rudimentary understanding of the use of computers, could instantly become their own regional or worldwide  publisher or take part in any number of exciting discussion and interest groups.  We’ve never turned back. Indeed social networking plus the advent of smart phones, tablets and other highly portable computer-like devices have totally revised the way many of us  communicate, socialize, fund raise and do business all around the world.  For myself, setting up interest streams on Facebook have helped my business,  sharpened my language learning skills (I speak English, French, Spanish, German and some Hebrew and Yiddish) plus generated a 24 hour stream of world art treasures, paintings and photography; all highly inspirational to me in my work as an advertising executive and commercial artist.

But  this new  communication miracle  also served darker interests. Seized upon by haters of every stripe. But Canada, in those lofty days, had a reasonable remedy for  online published hatred. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  And nobody wielded this piece of legislation  against more baddies and to greater effect than  Richard Warman.

By 2006, and under the guidance of B’nai Brith I had already used this section successfully in two different projects. Not something that most of you would have likely heard about, because neither of those cases ever went to a hearing.  The first concerned Vancouver and Victoria Indymedia. They were absolutely awash with vitriol: traditional antisemitism plus very explicit hatred against the continued existence of Israel.

Posting refutational material in response was spotty  at best. The Indy editors adamantly were loathe to clean up their discussion boards and it was unruly chaos.  By dint of close observation, I eventually discovered  who the heretofore carefully anonymous  principle editor was; and confirmed a residence address and enough relevant contact information to file a case. The  Commission accepted my complaint, and the fellow was eventually served a set of papers, receiving a packet in the mail. Rather than dispute, negotiate or attend a hearing, the editor  chose instead to make himself very scarce.  As in off of the grid. Virtually untraceable, in fact.

But before doing so,  he obliged us by erasing and disabling the then discussion board, ending the problem at hand.

Also in 2006, a local Victoria blog called www.pej.org (Peace, Earth & Justice) came to my attention in all of the bad far-left publicity that followed in the wake of Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon that year. PEJ.org became a cruel cesspit of not just criticism, but existential hatred.  Here are  a couple of stories  about it still  accessible online:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/website-promotes-hate-bnai-brith-member-says/article685986/

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/bnai-brith-uses-human-rights-complaint-to-squelch-critcism-of-israel

To move this story along  I’ll simply say that when finally served with  the complaint, the owner of the site promptly apologized and removed the specifically offending items, ending the problem.

No arrest. No release conditions. No court appearances. No legal fees.

PEJ.org still carries on today. I don’t monitor it anymore. But even if they do put out the occasional article that speaks unkindly of Israel, it’s not rampantly hateful like it was back in the day.

So finally, all of this has really been just a preamble to my initiating  contact with Mr. Topham. Arthur  was, if I recall correctly, for a time, actively associated with  PEJ, and I picked up on something nasty of his that was re-posted there and linked back to his radicalpress.com.  It was then (as it stands today) a virtual toilet of Jew hatred.   In 2007  I pseudonymously emailed the fellow, pointing out one ugly article (the link is still live, but perhaps not for very much longer) and asked him politely, but firmly, if he would kindly remove this article as it was both untrue and  highly offensive to Jews. I also warned that a federal level human rights action might be commenced against him if he didn’t.

I excerpt just a bit of Elie Wiesel’s Holocaust Tale and link it here:

“…Jewish supremacists are poisoning, subverting, perverting, and murdering people of all races. The world is enslaved by their control and their ideologies, with the aid of treasonous gentiles….”

Topham refused to accommodate my request.

So I went back to work and prepared a complaint. He was served and the dispute trundled along at a more or less glacial pace until it finally stalled in 2010; awaiting the outcome of a constitutional challenge to  one of Richard Warman’s  Section 13’s. By then it had become very fashionable for everybody and their cousin in media  all over Canada to roundly condemn this human rights mechanism, and I suppose there were enough exploitable weaknesses with the process as it then was to bring down the entire piece of legislation.

Those were some bad old days.

Canada’s Parliament de-certified this section of the Human Rights Act, and that ended 2 separate complaints that both I and Richard Warman had filed against Topham. Did I forget to mention that Richard Section 13’d Topham simultaneously as well?

Since then, former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has forwarded a bill to Parliament, with some very carefully considered amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. It would be nice to have something like it on the books again, but I don’t suppose it will see the light of day until well after our new government has fully legalized marijuana, and kept a few other election promises first.

So this brings us to 2011, and emboldened, I suppose, by the scuttling of Section 13, Topham appeared to double down on his rants and turned up the heat with more and more classics of hate literature, plus intense vilification of both Richard and myself;  and posted his piece de resistance, the  Israel Must Perish screed,  concocted from an obscure piece of  Allied WW2  propaganda that none of us had ever heard of before.

No doubt, he thought himself very clever to substitute the words Jew for German and Israel for Germany and so on to make up this egregious piece of work.

“…It is assumed that the reader will already be fully cognizant of the Zionist agenda for global governance that is a given in today’s political reality, especially within the alternative media and on the Internet where Zionist “hate” laws are still not fully in place to restrict the natural flow of ideas and opinions that proceed from historical research and experience….”

“…There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the Israeli nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some five million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Zionism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Israel from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.

Sterilization is not to be confused with castration. It is a safe and simple operation, quite harmless and painless, neither mutilating nor unsexing the patient. Its effects are most often less distressing than vaccination and not more serious than a tooth extraction. Too, the operation is extremely rapid requiring no more than ten minutes to complete. The patient may resume his work immediately afterwards. Even in the case of the female the operation, though taking longer to perform, is as safe and simple. Performed thousands of times, no records indicate cases of complication or death. When one realizes that such health measures as vaccination and serum treatments are considered as direct benefits to the community, certainly sterilization of the Jewish people cannot but be considered a great health measure promoted by humanity to immunize itself forever against the virus of Zionism.

…Concerning the males subject to sterilization the army groups, as organized units, would be the easiest and quickest to deal with. Taking 2,000 surgeons as an arbitrary number and on the assumption that each will perform a minimum of 25 operations daily, it would take no more than one month, at the maximum, to complete their sterilization. Naturally the more doctors available, and many more than the 2,000 we mention would be available considering all the nations to be drawn upon, the less time would be required. The balance of the male civilian population of Israel could be treated within three months. Inasmuch as sterilization of women needs somewhat more time, it may be computed that the entire female population of Israel could be sterilized within a period of a year or less. Complete sterilization of both sexes, and not only one, is to be considered necessary in view of the present Jewish doctrine that so much as one drop of true Jewish blood constitutes a Jew….”

And so my friends, especially those of you in media, I must ask you to take particular notice of even just these few paragraphs above, sampled  from the many thousands of pages and years and years of similar invective… volumes of material that all point in the same direction.

This has not been  a complaint about opinions with which I or B’nai Brith or Richard Warman or the Jewish Community of Canada simply disagree.  It’s incitement to genocide. Nothing less.  

Posted on by
Paul Fromm Reports on the First Two Weeks of the Arthur Topham Thought Crimes Trial in Quesnel, B.C.
 

Welcome! This video is of Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association of Freedom of Expression. Paul just returned after two weeks at the trial of Arthur Topham, held is Quesnel, BC, Canada. He gives his account of the trial experience as he saw it unfold and he describes key testimony such as Gilad Atzmon’s who spoke in Arthur’s defence. [Part of a meeting of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Vancouver, November 7, 2015)

 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
Defence expert witness Gilad Atzmon, Richard Warman free speech victim Terry Tremaine,defendant Arthur Topham and Defence lawyer Barclay Johnson

Federal Court of Appeal Sends Political Prisoner Terry Tremaine Back to Prison

Posted on by
Federal Court of Appeal Sends Political Prisoner Terry Tremaine Back to Prison
REGINA. September 10, 2014. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by political prisoner Terry Tremaine. Mr. Tremaine was appealing against a 30 day sentence originally imposed by Federal Court Judge Sean Harrington for civil contempt.
 
The contempt charge had been laid after numerous complaints by Richard Warman, who brought the initial complaint under the notorious Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, now repealed by Parliament. Sec. 13 involved Internet censorship. The Warman complaint focused on numerous postings Mr. Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, had made on the U.S. website STORMFRONT under the name mathdoktor 99.
Photo: Federal Court of Appeal Sends Political Prisoner Terry Tremaine Back to Prison REGINA. September 10, 2014. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by political prisoner Terry Tremaine. Mr. Tremaine was appealing against a 30 day sentence originally imposed by Federal Court Judge Sean Harrington for civil contempt. The contempt charge had been laid after numerous complaints by Richard Warman, who brought the initial complaint under the notorious Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, now repealed by Parliament. Sec. 13 involved Internet censorship. The Warman complaint focused on numerous postings Mr. Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, had made on the U.S. website STORMFRONT under the name mathdoktor 99. Judge Harrington had initially found Mr. Tremaine not guilty after a trial in Victoria in 2010. He held that Mr. Tremaine had not been served with the Federal Court Order (confirming the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal "cease and desist" order.) The Federal Court of Appeals overturned Judge Harrington in 2011 and advanced the novel notion that "cease and desist" required Mr. Tremaine to remove all the impugned posts, rather than not post similar material in the future,. even though the order made no mention of such action. Originally, in sentencing Mr. Tremaine in 2013, Judge Harrington ordered him to remove numerous posts. If he did not comply, he would go to jail for six months. Mr. Tremaine complied, but still faced a month in prison. Usually, in civil contempt cases, jail time is imposed only if the accused remains non-compliant. Amnesty International defines a "prisoner of conscience" or a political prisoner as a person punished for the non-violent expression of his political, religious or cultural views. Mr. Tremaine expressed disappointment at the Court of Appeal's decision, noting that the court seemed persuaded by Judge Harrington's melodramatic denunciation of the gentle scholar and scuba diver as "a villain." The decision seems to say, he added: "Screw the fact that the law which was offended has been repealed by Parliament. Screw the fact this is merely civil contempt. As he's a political dissident put the boots to the guy." The decision is not yet available on line. When it is, CAFE will provide a further analysis.
Judge Harrington had initially found Mr. Tremaine not guilty after a trial in Victoria in 2010. He held that Mr. Tremaine had not been served with the Federal Court Order (confirming the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal “cease and desist” order.) The Federal Court of Appeals overturned Judge Harrington in 2011 and advanced the novel notion that “cease and desist” required Mr. Tremaine to remove all the impugned posts, rather than not post similar material in the future,. even though the order made no mention of such action.
 
Originally, in sentencing Mr. Tremaine in 2013, Judge Harrington ordered him to remove numerous posts. If he did not comply, he would go to jail for six months.  Mr. Tremaine complied, but still faced a month in prison. Usually, in civil contempt cases, jail time is imposed only if the accused remains non-compliant.
 
Amnesty International defines a “prisoner of conscience” or a political prisoner as a person punished for the non-violent expression of his political, religious or cultural views.
 
Mr. Tremaine expressed disappointment at the Court of Appeal’s decision, noting that the court seemed persuaded by Judge Harrington’s melodramatic denunciation of the gentle scholar and scuba diver as “a villain.” 
 
The decision seems to say, he added: “Screw the fact that the law which was offended has been repealed by Parliament. Screw the fact this is merely civil contempt. As he’s a political dissident put the boots to the guy.”
 
The decision is not yet available on line. When it is, CAFE will provide a further analysis.