The Crazy Season of Political Purges is in Full Swing

The Crazy Season of Political Purges is in Full Swing

 
Canada’s political parties offer voters the depressing choice of Tweedledum, Tweedledummer, Tweedledummest and Tweedlegreen on October 19. For the past month there has been a near Stalinist purge among all party ranks of any candidate who has ever bleated the slightest comment critical either of Israel or the homosexual agenda. In this, all party leaders are hardcore Cultural Marxists. The homosexual agenda is fully triumphant and the Majority marginalized and dispossessed. All three parties are hacking away at their own ranks and, in effect, conceding some ridings on election day.
 
The latest victim of the tyranny of the homosexual agenda is a Conservative candidate in Malton one Jagdish Grewal
 
The Canadian Press (October 6, 2015) reports: “The Conservatives have dumped Jagdish Grewal, a candidate in suburban Toronto who defended therapies that attempt to turn gays straight and who penned an editorial that referred to homosexuality as ‘unnatural behaviour’ and heterosexuals as ‘normal.’

‘These comments do not reflect the views of the Conservative Party of Canada. We believe that all Canadians — regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation — deserve to be treated with respect and dignity,’ the Conservative Party said in a statement. ‘Mr. Grewal is no longer an official candidate for the Conservative Party.’

Grewal, running in Mississauga-Malton, wrote an editorial in the Punjabi Post earlier this year entitled ‘Is it wrong for a homosexual to become a normal person? [A great many Canadians find homosexual practices abnormal.]

Ironically, “At a rally in the riding on Sept. 8, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper appeared on stage with Grewal and praised his work. ‘I can tell you this: through his newspaper and radio show, he urges all those who come to this country to embrace the values of freedom, democracy, of tolerance, and respect, the things that make our country such a great place to live,’ Harper told the audience.” 

But in a Canada gripped by the Maoist madness of political correctness, the price of belittling buggery is ostracism, even for a member of a usually coddled class — Third World immigrants. “Earlier, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said that Grewal’s remarks were unacceptable and called on Harper to ‘remove him. We’re saying that in this day and age, a prime minister who accepts that, continues to tolerate it and accepts the type of statement today on homosexuals is frankly not showing leadership,’ Mulcair told reporters in Surrey, B.C. ‘Mr. Harper’s got to start getting it right and it starts by firing this candidate who said those things that are totally unacceptable about gays’.” 

The hypocrisy of political correctness would gag an alligator. It’s actually alright to say outrageously offensive things about Christians as long as you say they were not REALLY what you thought. What? A psychotic moment. My mouth ran one way and my brain another? Earlier this summer, Shawn Dearn, communications director to the same canting Thomas Mulcair was revealed to have tweeted the following tolerant thoughts: “Memo to CBC and all media,” one of them reads. “Stop calling the misogynist, homophobic, child-molesting Catholic church a ‘moral authority.’ It’s not.”

However, in a tweet to his followers late Tuesday, Dearn apologized.”Some tweets that pre-dated my current role were offensive and do not reflect my views,” he said. “They are being deleted and I apologize sincerely.: (Canadian Press, September 8, 2015) All was forgiven; Mulcair did not fire his Catholic-hating mouthpiece and the campaign chugged on.

Not so lucky were two NDP candidates who had issues with Israel or extremist Jews. [Mulcair, like Prime Minister Harper is a 110 per cent Israel First. Being married to a Sephadic Jewess may have something to do with it in Mulcair’s case.]

On August 10, according to CBC News (September 16, 2015),  “Morgan Wheeldon, an NDP candidate in Nova Scotia’s Kings-Hants riding, was forced to resign after suggesting in a 2014 Facebook post that Israel was engaged in “ethnic cleansing.”

On September 24, the NDP dropped its candidate in Winnipeg . CBC (September 25, 2015) reported|: “Until Thursday night, Stefan Jonasson, a Unitarian minister, was the NDP candidate for Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley in Winnipeg. Jonasson says he was asked by his party to step down after comments he made on social media surfaced earlier this week. Now, he says he plans to leave politics for good. ‘Politics has become so taken over by muckraking, by gotcha standards, by toxic behaviour on the part of those who cover it, I think I’m done with politics.” 

Three years ago, Jonasson posted an article in 2012 accusing the Haredim, a Jewish Orthodox sect, of mistreating women. He wrote “much like the Taliban and other extremists, the Haredim offer a toxic caricature of faith at odds with the spirit of the religious tradition they profess to represent.”

Jonasson tells As It Happens guest host Laura Lynch that “people are increasingly using the term ‘Taliban’ to refer to religious extremists of all kinds.” And although he defends his comparison of the Haredim to the Taliban, he says he wishes he hadn’t used those words. 

‘It wasn’t my intention to cause gratuitous offence. I was trying to call attention to the fact that women are not being treated equitably by some religious extremists’.”

Understandably disappointed at the intolerance of the NDP, Rev. Jonasson told the National Post (September 25, 2015): “I wish the party had had the courage and the foresight to believe that my candidacy was worth defending, but they did not.”

On August 24, the Tories dropped candidate Gilles Guibord, candidate in Rosemont-la-Petite-Prairie,  for his traditionalist views on Indians and men/.women relationships. His offending comments were: “First Nations refused to integrate into European culture. It’s their right, but there was a price to pay for that decision: Rejecting urban society and its advantages. The federal government used corruption to keep First Nations quieter… Political parties didn’t take responsibility for integrating aboriginal communities…”

“Before treating our ancestors as thieves, we have to at least not betray history. In Quebec, it’s the descendents of the French who have ancestral rights [to land], not the Mohawks. The Supreme Court still does not understand that.”

“To be fair, I think it’s better to speak of men’s authority over women, than of superiority. I think that male-female relations were not determined by religion, but rather by forces present before religions [existed]. Man was stronger than woman, the woman was placed under his protection. Because of pregnancies, women were often in a state of fragility or insecurity, so men protected them, etc.” (CBC August 24, 2105)

And the purges extended to the Liberal Party as well. Maria Manna who had posted some views expressing skepticism of the official version of 9/11 was dropped as a candidate in late September. “A Liberal candidate who expressed skepticism about the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. has resigned as the candidate in the B.C. riding of Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, CBC News has learned. Maria Manna had posted comments on her Facebook page that questioned the official account of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, calling it “the lie.” On Friday, she defended the comments, made in 2010 and 2013, saying they were her “truth” at the time.” (CBC, September 28, 2015) Truth then, but not now? If she’s changed her mind, why not just say so?

A couple of days later, the Liberals turfed out another candidate in British Columbia: “Cheryl Thomas, a Liberal Party candidate for Victoria, B.C., has resigned because of past comments she made on Facebook about the Muslim and Jewish communities.’I want to take this moment to apologize unreservedly for past comments on social media that have come to light,’ wrote Thomas on her website. Referring to mosques as “brainwashing stations. Saying “the oppressed of the Warsaw ghettos and the concentration camps have become the oppressors.” She knows she’s “sinned” by saying anything critical of privileged minorities, but despite her contrition still must go|: “When looking back at them, I understand that they are offensive and have no place in our political discourse.” (CBC, September 30, 2015) Pathetic!
 
Seemingly, the only acceptable candidates are complete ciphers who haven’t a brain or idea in their heads and who will be able to parrot the party line, whatever it is, on cue and, otherwise, just shut up.
Media placeholder

Jagdish Grewal out: Tories dump candidate for calling homosexuality “unnatural”

GIVE UP FREEDOM TO GAIN PERPETUAL WAR? NO THANK YOU!

Give Up Freedom To Gain Perpetual War? No Thank You!

In times of conflict, when our country is at war, we are willing to tolerate such inconveniences, burdens, and abridgements of our rights and freedoms as are deemed to be necessary for the war effort. We recognize, in such times, that the good of our whole country must come first and that we must come together in support of those who are fighting on our behalf. Implicit in all of this, however, is the understanding that war is an exceptional circumstance and that the conditions of peace in which our rights and freedoms are not so curtailed are the norm.

This long-standing traditional consensus served us well down through the ages but in the last century it was torn apart by attacks coming from two different directions. While there have always been those who have defected from their society’s collective efforts in wartime in post-World War II conflicts these have occurred on a much larger scale as part of organized movements that have been driven by ideologies such as pacifism. From this direction the tradition that tells us to come together in unity when our country is at war has come under attack. The attack from the other direction is upon the tradition that tells us to make the conditions of peace the norm and it is this attack, and especially one particular form of this attack, that I wish to discuss here. 

 
 
 
'Give Up Freedom To Gain Perpetual War? No Thank You!

In times of conflict, when our country is at war, we are willing to tolerate such inconveniences, burdens, and abridgements of our rights and freedoms as are deemed to be necessary for the war effort. We recognize, in such times, that the good of our whole country must come first and that we must come together in support of those who are fighting on our behalf. Implicit in all of this, however, is the understanding that war is an exceptional circumstance and that the conditions of peace in which our rights and freedoms are not so curtailed are the norm. 

This long-standing traditional consensus served us well down through the ages but in the last century it was torn apart by attacks coming from two different directions. While there have always been those who have defected from their society’s collective efforts in wartime in post-World War II conflicts these have occurred on a much larger scale as part of organized movements that have been driven by ideologies such as pacifism. From this direction the tradition that tells us to come together in unity when our country is at war has come under attack. The attack from the other direction is upon the tradition that tells us to make the conditions of peace the norm and it is this attack, and especially one particular form of this attack, that I wish to discuss here. 

If the tradition under attack says that the conditions of peace in which the public are not overly burdened with rules and taxes and their customary rights and freedoms are not abridged are to be the norm then to attack this tradition is to say that the conditions appropriate for wartime are to be the norm instead. One way in which this occurred in the last century was that liberalism, the ideology that started in the so-called “Enlightenment” and came to dominate the Western world in the period known as the Modern Age, changed, at least in North America, in the period between the two World Wars. Until the First World War the ideas of John Locke, in which the need to protect the rights and liberties of the individual from the state was stressed, formed the most prominent strain in liberal thought. After the war the ideas of Jeremy Bentham, in which the role of the modern democratic state as the agent and instrument of utilitarian progress was emphasized, eclipsed those of Locke. The basis of this shift in liberal thought was the reasoning on the part of many liberals who served in administrative positions in the First World War that if the government can mobilize and organize society for the sake of the war effort in times of war then surely it can mobilize and organize society to achieve a better, more just, society in times of peace. This has certainly taken the liberty out of liberalism.

Another way in which governments, addicted to wartime powers, have resisted the tradition of reverting to the conditions of peace as the norm, has been to make conflict the norm rather than peace. About the time that liberalism underwent the shift described in the preceding paragraph liberals of the older type, including American historians such as Charles Beard and Harry Elmer Barnes, began to see a tendency in the foreign policy of the liberal American Presidents of the ‘30s and ‘40s towards holding up “freedom”, “democracy”, and “peace” as ideals while constantly mobilizing the country for war on behalf of those ideals. “Perpetual war for perpetual peace” was how Beard described this policy to Barnes, who borrowed the title for a anthology of essays he edited in 1953 that took a hard, critical, look at the policies of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. (1) Another of these older type liberals, who now called themselves libertarians, Murray N. Rothbard, observed that a “welfare-warfare state” had developed that both practiced the policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace and employed high levels of taxation, spending, and regulation for non-belligerent, progressive purposes in the Benthamite manner we have discussed. That a policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace could be used as a cover for collusion between military leaders and arms manufacturers for the sake of war profiteering on a whole new level made possible by the advent of mass production was a danger against which American President Dwight Eisenhower warned in his Farewell Address.

In the last decade and a half events have transpired that our governments have exploited to take the policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace to a whole new level.

Since the end of the Second World War the acknowledged leading country of the Western world has, for better or worse, been the United States of America. After the Cold War came to an end America and the West have become increasingly entangled in the conflicts of the Middle East. When, on September 11, 2001, the United States found herself the victim of a terrorist attack the American President at the time declared a “War on Terror”. As part of this “War on Terror” the American government created a powerful new agency, the Department of Homeland Security, charged with the task of preventing terrorist attacks on American soil, and the USA PATRIOT Act, which enhanced the investigatory powers of law enforcement and security agencies by removing such impediments as the need for a court order to search records, was rushed through Congress. Here in Canada Jean Chretien’s Liberals rushed similar legislation through Parliament in the form of the Anti-Terrorism Act of the fall of 2001.

The supporters of bills like these argued that they were necessary to remove obstructions that got in the way of security agencies and hindered them from doing their job of protecting us from the violence of terrorism. Critics and opponents of the same bills argued that these so-called obstructions were actually safeguards that protected Canadians and Americans against the misuse of government power and that to get rid of these safeguards is to abandon centuries of tradition, stretching back to before the founding of either the United States or Canada, in which these safeguards evolved to protect our rights and liberties, lives and persons. These critics were, of course, right. If we were to interpret every crisis that occurs as indicating a need for either enhanced government powers or a loosening of constitutional, prescriptive, and legal restraints on the use of government powers, very soon we would have an omnipotent state and no rights and freedoms worth speaking of.

Nobody made this case better than the late paleoconservative columnist Sam Francis, who in column after column took the administration of George W. Bush to task for such things as trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals rather than real courts, eavesdropping on confidential communications and issuing national id cards, creating the Department of Homeland Security, and putting police surveillance cameras throughout federal buildings in Washington D. C., as creating a slippery slope, whereby Americans would become accustomed to less rights, liberties, and constitutional protections and to being spied on by their government. Noting that the powers granted to the American government by the Patriot Act “are far larger than the government of any free people should have and that whatever powers this administration doesn’t use could still be used by future ones”, he pointed out that this “is how free peoples typically lose their freedom—not by a dictator like Saddam Hussein suddenly grabbing power in the night and seizing all the library records but by the slow erosion of the habits and mentality that enables freedom to exist at all” and concluded that the Bush administration was writing the last chapters in the story of American liberty.

Chretien’s Anti-Terrorism Act was no better. This Act utterly abandoned our country’s traditions of liberty and justice and allowed for people to be arrested and detained without charges, denied basic legal protections, and tried in secret without being guaranteed the opportunity to hear and respond to all the evidence against them, if the government were to determine them to be a threat to national security. This Act expired several years ago – legislation of this nature can only be enacted for five year periods – but, contrary to Kelly McParland’s claim in the National Post on February 2nd of this year, it did not expire without having been used. Among its other provisions was an amendment to the national security certificate provision of the Immigration Act that made possible an incident that was a shameful disgrace to our country.

An elderly man, who immigrated to Canada from Germany in the 1950s, who had never committed any violent crime here or elsewhere although he was the victim of terrorist attacks on the part of the followers of Rabbi Kahane, but who was repeatedly dragged through our courts for the “crime” of trying to spread the idea that accounts of atrocities committed by the other side in the Second World War still need to be revised to less resemble wartime propaganda, moved to the United States in order to escape this persecution. He married a woman there, applied for citizenship, and was arrested by United States Immigration who handed him over to our authorities, who issued a national security certificate against him. He was placed in solitary confinement and tried behind closed doors by a judge who refused to recuse himself, despite his obvious bias, and found guilty on the basis of evidence he was not allowed to hear in full, and was then sent to Germany, with our government knowing full well that the German government would arrest him upon landing, and sentence him to five years in prison for mere words that he said. This man, Ernst Zündel, was a noted admirer of a rather odious historical regime, but that did not make him a terrorist any more than Pierre Trudeau’s admiration for the even more odious Maoist regime in China, which, as was not the case with Zündel, was still around when Trudeau was doing the admiring, made the former Prime Minister a terrorist. It is certainly no excuse for treating the man with such blatant injustice.

Chretien’s Anti-Terrorism Act has, as we have noted, expired but our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, wishes to pass another one. Bill C-51, which has passed its second reading and been referred to the Standing Committee in the House, has several parts to it. The first, and the one most emphasized by the bill’s advocates and defenders, is the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act which tells other government agencies to share their information with those charged with protecting national security. This sounds reasonable at first, until you think about why government agencies were prevented from doing this in the first place. The fourth part is the one the bill’s detractors prefer to emphasize because it greatly enhances the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). The bill’s supporters say this is to reduce threats to Canadian security, its detractors say that it is to enable CSIS to better spy on Canadians. Other parts of the bill include the Secure Air Travel Act, which authorizes the creation of a no-fly list and otherwise ensures that airport security will be even more of an obnoxious pain in the buttocks than it already is, and various amendments to the Criminal Code including one that makes mincemeat out of the traditional right to confront and challenge your accuser in court in the euphemistic name of the “protection of witnesses”.

This bill is an abomination and the vote on it should be a pretty good litmus test as to how much respect for Canadians and their traditional rights and freedoms our Members of Parliament and Senators possess. The present government was elected by supporters who were sick and tired of the way the Liberal Party was overtaxing and overregulating Canadians while showing complete disregard for our traditions, rights, and freedoms. Why then is it determined to establish a surveillance state? It is rather ironic that the most active opposition to this bill in the House seems to be coming from the party whose members can never speak about freedom without sounding like a Cold War era apparatchik spouting off about “the freedom loving people of the Soviet Union”.

The fact of the matter is that the “war on terrorism” is the ultimate form of “perpetual war for perpetual peace”. The enemy in this war is not a foreign government, with its own territory, that can be decisively conquered, defeated, or destroyed. No matter how many Cato the Elders we may find to punctuate their speeches with “terrorismo delenda est”, we will never be able to produce a single Scipio Africanus to conclusively defeat terrorism, or an Aemilianus to raze its stronghold to the ground, and sow its fields with salt, that it may never rise again. It is not that kind of an enemy. Terrorism can pop up anywhere at any time. A war against terrorism is a war that can never end. A government that wishes to constantly retain its wartime powers and abandon the traditional understanding that peace is to be the norm, not war, could find no better means of accomplishing this end, than by declaring a war on terrorism, and passing bills like C-51.

(1) The title was reused by the late, left-libertarian novelist and essayist Gore Vidal, for a collection of essays similarly criticizing the policies of more recent administrations in 2002.

POSTED BY GERRY T. NEAL AT 11:17 AM 
LABELS: BILL C51, CATO, CHARLES BEARD, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, ERNST ZÜNDEL, FREEDOM, GORE VIDAL, HARRY ELMER BARNES, JEAN CHRETIEN,JEREMY BENTHAM, JOHN LOCKE, MURRAY N. ROTHBARD, SAM FRANCIS,STEPHEN HARPER, WAR ON TERRO'

If the tradition under attack says that the conditions of peace in which the public are not overly burdened with rules and taxes and their customary rights and freedoms are not abridged are to be the norm then to attack this tradition is to say that the conditions appropriate for wartime are to be the norm instead. One way in which this occurred in the last century was that liberalism, the ideology that started in the so-called “Enlightenment” and came to dominate the Western world in the period known as the Modern Age, changed, at least in North America, in the period between the two World Wars. Until the First World War the ideas of John Locke, in which the need to protect the rights and liberties of the individual from the state was stressed, formed the most prominent strain in liberal thought. After the war the ideas of Jeremy Bentham, in which the role of the modern democratic state as the agent and instrument of utilitarian progress was emphasized, eclipsed those of Locke. The basis of this shift in liberal thought was the reasoning on the part of many liberals who served in administrative positions in the First World War that if the government can mobilize and organize society for the sake of the war effort in times of war then surely it can mobilize and organize society to achieve a better, more just, society in times of peace. This has certainly taken the liberty out of liberalism.

Another way in which governments, addicted to wartime powers, have resisted the tradition of reverting to the conditions of peace as the norm, has been to make conflict the norm rather than peace. About the time that liberalism underwent the shift described in the preceding paragraph liberals of the older type, including American historians such as Charles Beard and Harry Elmer Barnes, began to see a tendency in the foreign policy of the liberal American Presidents of the ‘30s and ‘40s towards holding up “freedom”, “democracy”, and “peace” as ideals while constantly mobilizing the country for war on behalf of those ideals. “Perpetual war for perpetual peace” was how Beard described this policy to Barnes, who borrowed the title for a anthology of essays he edited in 1953 that took a hard, critical, look at the policies of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. (1) Another of these older type liberals, who now called themselves libertarians, Murray N. Rothbard, observed that a “welfare-warfare state” had developed that both practiced the policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace and employed high levels of taxation, spending, and regulation for non-belligerent, progressive purposes in the Benthamite manner we have discussed. That a policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace could be used as a cover for collusion between military leaders and arms manufacturers for the sake of war profiteering on a whole new level made possible by the advent of mass production was a danger against which American President Dwight Eisenhower warned in his Farewell Address.

In the last decade and a half events have transpired that our governments have exploited to take the policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace to a whole new level.

Since the end of the Second World War the acknowledged leading country of the Western world has, for better or worse, been the United States of America. After the Cold War came to an end America and the West have become increasingly entangled in the conflicts of the Middle East. When, on September 11, 2001, the United States found herself the victim of a terrorist attack the American President at the time declared a “War on Terror”. As part of this “War on Terror” the American government created a powerful new agency, the Department of Homeland Security, charged with the task of preventing terrorist attacks on American soil, and the USA PATRIOT Act, which enhanced the investigatory powers of law enforcement and security agencies by removing such impediments as the need for a court order to search records, was rushed through Congress. Here in Canada Jean Chretien’s Liberals rushed similar legislation through Parliament in the form of the Anti-Terrorism Act of the fall of 2001.

The supporters of bills like these argued that they were necessary to remove obstructions that got in the way of security agencies and hindered them from doing their job of protecting us from the violence of terrorism. Critics and opponents of the same bills argued that these so-called obstructions were actually safeguards that protected Canadians and Americans against the misuse of government power and that to get rid of these safeguards is to abandon centuries of tradition, stretching back to before the founding of either the United States or Canada, in which these safeguards evolved to protect our rights and liberties, lives and persons. These critics were, of course, right. If we were to interpret every crisis that occurs as indicating a need for either enhanced government powers or a loosening of constitutional, prescriptive, and legal restraints on the use of government powers, very soon we would have an omnipotent state and no rights and freedoms worth speaking of.

Nobody made this case better than the late paleoconservative columnist Sam Francis, who in column after column took the administration of George W. Bush to task for such things as trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals rather than real courtseavesdropping on confidential communications and issuing national id cardscreating the Department of Homeland Security, and putting police surveillance cameras throughout federal buildings in Washington D. C., as creating a slippery slope, whereby Americans would become accustomed to less rights, liberties, and constitutional protections and to being spied on by their government. Noting that the powers granted to the American government by the Patriot Act “are far larger than the government of any free people should have and that whatever powers this administration doesn’t use could still be used by future ones”, he pointed out that this “is how free peoples typically lose their freedom—not by a dictator like Saddam Hussein suddenly grabbing power in the night and seizing all the library records but by the slow erosion of the habits and mentality that enables freedom to exist at all” and concluded that the Bush administration was writing the last chapters in the story of American liberty.

Chretien’s Anti-Terrorism Act was no better. This Act utterly abandoned our country’s traditions of liberty and justice and allowed for people to be arrested and detained without charges, denied basic legal protections, and tried in secret without being guaranteed the opportunity to hear and respond to all the evidence against them, if the government were to determine them to be a threat to national security. This Act expired several years ago – legislation of this nature can only be enacted for five year periods – but, contrary to Kelly McParland’s claim in the National Post on February 2nd of this year, it did not expire without having been used. Among its other provisions was an amendment to the national security certificate provision of the Immigration Act that made possible an incident that was a shameful disgrace to our country.

An elderly man, who immigrated to Canada from Germany in the 1950s, who had never committed any violent crime here or elsewhere although he was the victim of terrorist attacks on the part of the followers of Rabbi Kahane, but who was repeatedly dragged through our courts for the “crime” of trying to spread the idea that accounts of atrocities committed by the other side in the Second World War still need to be revised to less resemble wartime propaganda, moved to the United States in order to escape this persecution. He married a woman there, applied for citizenship, and was arrested by United States Immigration who handed him over to our authorities, who issued a national security certificate against him. He was placed in solitary confinement and tried behind closed doors by a judge who refused to recuse himself, despite his obvious bias, and found guilty on the basis of evidence he was not allowed to hear in full, and was then sent to Germany, with our government knowing full well that the German government would arrest him upon landing, and sentence him to five years in prison for mere words that he said. This man, Ernst Zündel, was a noted admirer of a rather odious historical regime, but that did not make him a terrorist any more than Pierre Trudeau’s admiration for the even more odious Maoist regime in China, which, as was not the case with Zündel, was still around when Trudeau was doing the admiring, made the former Prime Minister a terrorist. It is certainly no excuse for treating the man with such blatant injustice.

Chretien’s Anti-Terrorism Act has, as we have noted, expired but our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, wishes to pass another one. Bill C-51, which has passed its second reading and been referred to the Standing Committee in the House, has several parts to it. The first, and the one most emphasized by the bill’s advocates and defenders, is the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act which tells other government agencies to share their information with those charged with protecting national security. This sounds reasonable at first, until you think about why government agencies were prevented from doing this in the first place. The fourth part is the one the bill’s detractors prefer to emphasize because it greatly enhances the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). The bill’s supporters say this is to reduce threats to Canadian security, its detractors say that it is to enable CSIS to better spy on Canadians. Other parts of the bill include the Secure Air Travel Act, which authorizes the creation of a no-fly list and otherwise ensures that airport security will be even more of an obnoxious pain in the buttocks than it already is, and various amendments to the Criminal Code including one that makes mincemeat out of the traditional right to confront and challenge your accuser in court in the euphemistic name of the “protection of witnesses”.

This bill is an abomination and the vote on it should be a pretty good litmus test as to how much respect for Canadians and their traditional rights and freedoms our Members of Parliament and Senators possess. The present government was elected by supporters who were sick and tired of the way the Liberal Party was overtaxing and overregulating Canadians while showing complete disregard for our traditions, rights, and freedoms. Why then is it determined to establish a surveillance state? It is rather ironic that the most active opposition to this bill in the House seems to be coming from the party whose members can never speak about freedom without sounding like a Cold War era apparatchik spouting off about “the freedom loving people of the Soviet Union”.

The fact of the matter is that the “war on terrorism” is the ultimate form of “perpetual war for perpetual peace”. The enemy in this war is not a foreign government, with its own territory, that can be decisively conquered, defeated, or destroyed. No matter how many Cato the Elders we may find to punctuate their speeches with “terrorismo delenda est”, we will never be able to produce a single Scipio Africanus to conclusively defeat terrorism, or an Aemilianus to raze its stronghold to the ground, and sow its fields with salt, that it may never rise again. It is not that kind of an enemy. Terrorism can pop up anywhere at any time. A war against terrorism is a war that can never end. A government that wishes to constantly retain its wartime powers and abandon the traditional understanding that peace is to be the norm, not war, could find no better means of accomplishing this end, than by declaring a war on terrorism, and passing bills like C-51.

(1) The title was reused by the late, left-libertarian novelist and essayist Gore Vidal, for a collection of essays similarly criticizing the policies of more recent administrations in 2002.

The World from Fort McMurray — Commentary By Former Political Prisoner Brad Love

The World from Fort McMurray — Commentary By Former Political Prisoner Brad Love
On a rare day off I attend Burger King for a 25-cent coffee and I am served by a 12-year-old East Indian boy.  I asked his age.  This town of For. McMurray (Ft. Mac) is awash with temporary foreign workers. Land at the newly opened airport and the facility is awash in Filipinos cleaning and serving.
 
The costliest hotel in town (where politicos constantly meet) is the Saw Ridge Inn which is owned by a native ban,although, no natives seem work there. Its staff is all Third Worlders, some of whom, despite the vast profits this hotel rakes in, are housed in local subsidized housing.  Corporate welfare?  Of course.  The workers who did interior renovations at this hotel were all mainland Chinese.  I asked.  

 
Downtown streets are awash with strolling Africans and Muslims and all of the women seem to be enormously pregnant.  Not good.  While our hospital and other social facilities hold nonstop charity drives to buy equipment, our mayor spends $20 million on a footbridge that will cross a rarely used river.  And tens of millions more will go  on a downtown arena and outdoor rink near city hall.  The bridge and the rink will be deserted come our -40-degree winters.
 
No one asked for this stuff.  Is our city government  simply rewarding their contractor pals with borrowed dollars?  Our delicate media dare not ask hard questions … nor do I.  Despite the billions that Harper wastes on Afghan/Africa/Haiti, our door-to-door mail service gets cut off in 60 days. Meanwhile, I work 80 hours weekly, the government steals half so Harper can fly all his pals to Israel.  I know, BUT DON’T SAY ANYTHING!!!
 
Back in Ontario, which I also subsidize, almost 2 million souls wile away their days on welfare or ODSP while here in Ft. Mac, a steady stream of temporary foreign workers lands at the airport.  No one gets this. 
 
In the parking lot of our downtown mall, dozens of homeless and disoriented natives sleep on lawns and in doorways.  At night, they actually lock the doors on our heated bus shelters to prevent vandalism and sleepovers. No one ever asked for these costly shelters either.  Our local radio DJs will utter “fart and boob” comments but will never talk about what I’ve written and I dare not call them to prompt them either. They might complain of “harassment” again.  Juvenile cowards, all of them!
 
Here’s a prediction:  When Harper/Kenney/Baird leave office, how much you wanna bet that these three stooges for Israel find great jobs with companies like Gerry Schwartz’s Onex Corp for their undying obedience to Jewish causes.    Not a coincidence. Trust me.  No one will question this. 
 
Obesity is a huge problem here.  Too many dollars and nowhere to go. So, they eat fast food like you wouldn’t believe. This will jam up our depleted healthcare in the years to come, Yet, let’s not offend self-inflicted fat people who don’t know what to do with their dollars.  I’ve met grown men who don’t even know what an RRSP is.  ‘Course, they’ve never ever voted and would understand nothing of this letter’s contents.  A 300-pound woman covered in tattoos is not pretty to look at!
 
Now that the holocaust of Gaza is all but complete, certain media types and politicos here mouth off about Israeli’s right to defend itself.  Now of course, if you ever mentioned Canada or Canadian’s “right to defend themselves” or such similar nationalistic themes, especially when it comes to immigration, illegals, foreign aid, etc., these same brash Israel-firsters will be the first to accuse you of being “closed minded and racist” and will set upon you like only the B’nai Brith knows how.  What is good for racist Israel is NOT good for or in Canada. If this same tribe continues to shut down free speech as they’re doing then they should not be surprised when no one speaks up when they come for them again.  They’ve dug their own graves. 
ALL FOR NOW, BRAD.
_____________________________
Brad Love arrested at Toronto free speech meeting in April, 2009 for “breach of probation” for writing more letters.. The eight-man take  down squad of Metropolitan Toronto thought police brought a Globe and Mail reporter in tow.
Political prisoner Brad Love was hammered, in 2003, with the harshest sentence ever — 18 months — under Canada’s notorious thought crimes law, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code for writing opinionated non-threatening letters to elected officials. His probation conditions have been repeatedly tightened over the intervening years so that, at one point, a Judge Hogg (no kidding) ordered him not to write to “any person” without their  express consent. This order was issued, not in North Korea, but in Canada. In 2012, he was convicted of breach of probation for sending information packages to several Jewish groups who had, in fact, consented. He received an additional 18 months and now labours under a further ban not to write to political media or religious groups. Again, this Orwellian trampling of free speech occurred , not in North Korea or the Congo, but in smug, self-satisfied and increasingly repressive Canada.

System Keeps Spinning Its Wheels in “Hate” Persecution of Political Prisoner Arthur Topham

System Keeps Spinning Its Wheels in “Hate” Persecution of Political Prisoner Arthur Topham
And don’t forget all Arthur Topham ever did was express opinions critical of Zionism and Israel. His life is cast into poverty and turmoil by repeated complaints by Richard Warfman and Harry Abrams and an anti-free speech law that enables such thought suppression. And our hypocritical Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a virtual mouthpiece of both the Israel First lobby and increasingly of the homosexual lobby, dares criticize Russia: “ ‘We don’t imprison people for their expressing political positions. I think our position in this regard represents the position of Canadians and they expect that we speak in favour of these rights,’ he added during a speech in Miramichi, New Brunswick.”  Tell that to Arthur Topham. Of course, Canada seeks to imprison those expressing political positions strongly critical of privileged minorities.

CAFE is proud to support this scrappy freethinker in his battle against thought control and state suppression of free speech,  Paul FrommDirectorCANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15

August 16, 2013
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15 August 16, 2013“There’s no such thing as ‘Hate Speech.’ You either have FREE speech or you don’t – it’s that simple.” ~Anonymous
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 saw my return to Quesnel’s provincial courthouse for yet another appearance related to the matter of the Sec. 319(2) CCC charge and my arrest and incarceration May 16th, 2012 for the spurious crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.’

The previous time was back on  July 9th, 2013 when the issue of CC Johnston’s attempt to go for a direct indictment failed. It was also then that further efforts were made to set dates for my Rowbotham application hearing, the Rowbotham being my only option at this stage of the proceedings that will literally afford me a lawyer in order to act in my defence. As well, a the date of August 13th was supposed to be when I would appear before Judge Morgan and speak to my application for particularization of the evidence which the Crown was planning to base its case on.At this point in the process where every appearance tends to hold unanticipated surprises it has become my practise not to get too bent out of shape trying to fathom what may or may not occur. That way of thinking appears to be best and so again I wasn’t disappointed to find that things didn’t go as planned.I was scheduled to also meet with the Trial Coordinator, Sherry Jasper, after dealing with the particularization issue in court but while waiting in the courtroom for Judge Morgan to appear CC Johnston approached me and said that she was sure that she had heard the Judge say during our previous appearance that I could postpone the Particularization application until such time as I knew whether or not my Rowbotham application was going to be approved and I could have counsel representation for the Particularization hearing.I didn’t recollect the judge telling me that but at the same time I also realized that given the option it would be best to wait until I knew if the Rowbotham application was going to be approved and a lawyer appointed for my defence. Knowing I was ill equipped to do so beyond just reading out the information to the court that my former lawyer Doug Christie had prepared in my defence I decided to heed what CC had just revealed to me and so I told her that I would opt for not proceeding with the application at this time. Johnston then suggested I let the Trial Coordinator know what had transpired and that was that for the courtroom side of things.I went to Jasper’s office and explained what had just taken place in the courtroom and she told me that she would strike the Application from today’s list and that once I knew the outcome of the Rowbotham application I could then bring it back before the Court to fix a hearing date.That taken care of we moved on to the Rowbotham application issue and she called Keith Evans the lawyer for the Attorney General’s office in order to fix a hearing date for that application.It should be mentioned here that prior to my appearance on August 13th I had spoken with Keith Evans via the telephone regarding all the additional documents which the AG’s office still required in order to process the application. Mr. Evans told me at that time that he would not likely be able to hold a hearing on the matter until after September of this year as he was already booked up for that month and that I still would have time to submit further materials to back up my application. I had already begun the process of putting together some of the documents requested and filling out forms allowing the AG’s office to access my bank accounts and contact Canada Revenue Services, etc. and had shipped these off to his office prior to my appearance on Tuesday so when Jasper contacted Evans he told her that the process was unfolding according to plan and that he expected the remaining documents from me would be forthcoming well in advance of the hearing date then to be set. Jasper then suggested November 18th, 2013 for the hearing date along with a time allotment of two hours. Evans responded by saying that he would rather see five hours set for the hearing as that was usually how long they took. Jasper expressed surprise at that but then agreed to set a longer period of time. The 18th was also a date when Judge Morgan would be able to preside over the hearing which is a good thing given that he has been overseeing the case to this point.I should add here with respect to this Rowbotham application that the expectations of the Attorney General’s office are the equivalent of having to perform a forensic audit of my financial situation since last November 5th of 2012 when the indictment was finally handed down. It’s intense and very time consuming having to justify every penny since that time period.That concluded the day’s events and my wife and I left the building.One other related issue that came up during the interval between August 13th and my previous appearance on July 9th was a Notice of Libel that I received from Richard Warman, one of the complainants in this case. Warman had taken issue with some prefatory remarks made by me in an article I had posted on the Radical Press website back on January 1st, 2013. He then hired the Ottawa law firm of Caza Saikaley to represent him and demanded that I remove the said article and commentary from the site and post an apology and retraction. After some reflection and knowing that I was ill equipped to take on another legal battle I had no option but to adhere to Warman’s wishes and do as requested. In addition to publishing the retraction and apology I also had to send Warman a money order for $500.00 to cover his legal expenses. That meant yet another frantic appeal for funds to those supporting my legal struggles. Thank God kind souls came to the rescue and I was able to pay the costs for which I am deeply grateful.So for now I must complete the task of sending all the required information to the AG’s office over the next month or so and await my next court date of November 18th, 2013.

For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone, Everywhere,
Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press Canada’s Radical News Network “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″ ——-

P.S. I would once again please ask readers to consider helping me out financially with a donation if they can. Go to the top of the Home Page at www.radicalpress.com and click on the “PLEASE DONATE TO THE RADICAL PRESS FREE SPEECH DEFENSE FUND” link where you will find all the information necessary to send financial help. Thank you.