Author Archives: admin

Arthur Topham Explains the Origins of Sec. 13 (Now Internet Censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Posted on by
Arthur Topham Explains the Origins of Sec. 13 (Now Internet Censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
Political dissident and free speech warrior Arthur Topham, relying on research done by lawyer Barbara Kulazska and Marc Lemire provides a tidy summary of the repressive Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which Marc Lemire is fighting to have ruled unconstitutional before the Federal Court of Appeal. CAFE has backed Mr. Lemire’s decade-long battle against a complaint by Richard Warman and is intervening on his behalf in the Federal Court fo Appeal.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Here   in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their   surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then   Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by   Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor,   began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of   speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair   comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full   history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html )

Photo: Arthur Topham Explains the Origins of Sec. 13 (Now Internet Censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act Political dissident and free speech warrior Arthur Topham, relying on research done by lawyer Barbara Kulazska and Marc Lemire provides a tidy summary of the repressive Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which Marc Lemire is fighting to have ruled unconstitutional before the Federal Court of Appeal. CAFE has backed Mr. Lemire's decade-long battle against a complaint by Richard Warman and is intervening on his behalf in the Federal Court fo Appeal. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION Here in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor, began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html ) According to Marc Lemire’s history of Section 13, “In 1976, the Federal Government was looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally regulated services.” This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the Federal government to capitulate [to the Jewish lobby. Ed.] and slip in an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.” In 1977 Bill C-25 or the “Canadian Human Rights Act” was passed by the House of Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of “Hate messages” was Section 13 which read: 13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. As Lemire goes on to state: “Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups [Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council. Ed.] as the complainants. Since the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13. These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation, and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish those with politically incorrect views. The first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000. On top of the fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation.’ According to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added “as a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to financial penalty.” The second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 – Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet.” This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the Rights Fanatics disagree with. [Emphasis added. Ed.] This change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly ‘combat terrorism.’”

According   to Marc Lemire’s history of Section 13, “In 1976, the Federal Government was   looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally   regulated services.”  This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous   sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other   section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the   Federal government to capitulate [to the Jewish lobby. Ed.] and slip in   an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John   Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.”

In   1977 Bill C-25 or the “Canadian Human Rights Act” was passed by the House of   Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of “Hate   messages” was Section 13 which read:

13.   (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons   acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so   communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a   telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament,   any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt   by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on   the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As   Lemire goes on to state:

“Only   a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and   John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights   Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups [Canadian   Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council. Ed.] as   the complainants.

Since   the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13.    These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation,   and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish   those with politically incorrect views.

The   first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent   was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to   the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to   the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights   Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000.  On top of the   fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose   penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation.’

According   to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added “as a   response to the rising incidence of hate   crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger   measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from   establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this   by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting   offenders to financial penalty.”

The   second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September   11th 2001.  Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically   incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and   concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 –    Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover    “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the   Internet.” This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights   Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the   Rights Fanatics disagree with. [Emphasis added. Ed.]

This   change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly ‘combat   terrorism.’”

Crown Threatens to Deny Arthur Topham a Preliminary Hearing and Proceed by Direct Indictment

Posted on by
Crown Threatens to Deny Arthur Topham a Preliminary Hearing and Proceed by Direct Indictment
Screen Shot 2013-04-18 at 11.39.37 AM.png
May 16th, 2013
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
Today, May 16th, 2013, marks the first anniversary of my arrest and incarceration last May 16th, 2012 when Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and the BC “Hate Crime Team” flew up from Vancouver and along with a crew of approximately 14 police officers, stopped my vehicle containing myself and my wife while on route to Prince George on a business trip and charged me under the criminal code of Canada with a sec. 319(2) “Hate Crime”. I was read my rights, arrested, handcuffed and carted off to the Quesnel jail where I spend the rest of the day in a cell while Det. Wilson’s team awaited an illegal search warrant and then entered my home and stole all of my computers and electronic files as well as my firearms which are my only means of defense well outside of any RCMP range of immediate help in case of an emergency.
Coincidentally today was also the latest in a protracted series of court appearances that began back on October 9th, 2012. Today’s menu of misfeasance included a new item that suddenly popped up when I was supposed to be appearing before the provincial judge to discuss my last application to the court requesting particularization of the disclosure material submitted by the Crown. Those who have been following these legal updates will be aware of what that was all about and for anyone new interested in finding out they can go to Legal Update #1 at the following url and review it there. That application plus setting a date for a preliminary inquiry and an update on my Rowbotham application were all scheduled for the 16th. For some unknown reason Judge Morgan who normally hears my case was unable to be there and  another out of town female judge was sitting in for him.
The judge, after looking over the menu, decided that she would not attempt to deal with the application for particularization and told the Crown that she would postpone that until May 28th, 2013 when Judge Morgan would be in attendance as he had been dealing with it and knew much more about the case. Seeing that I was without counsel the judge, having looked at my Rowbotham application and noted that it had all be prepared properly and had been accepted, then took the time to explain to me how and why the Rowbotham application works and when a person can file one. For obvious reasons I knew how it worked as I had already prepared the document awhile go but I stood quietly and listened to her review the process. She then explained that if I wished to have counsel prior to the planned preliminary enquiry that I would have to apply beforehand but that if, after the preliminary enquiry, it was determined that the case would proceed to trial then I would have to file a second Rowbotham application in order to obtain another counsel to represent me in the trial. 
I had received a package of material from the Ministry of Justice Legal Services Branch on May 11th in response to my Notice of Application and Affidavit which I had served on the AGBC April 23, 2013. In it Keith Evans, legal counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia (AGBC), explained all the details of how to go about filling in the additionally required documents related to the application and also informing me that I would have to decide beforehand whether or not I wished to have the application relate to obtaining counsel for the preliminary enquiry or the pending trial or both. If both then I would have to submit two separate applications. 
At this point I asked the honourable judge if I might ask her a question and she consented. I wanted clarification as to primary purpose of holding a preliminary enquiry and I asked the judge if, in fact, the preliminary enquiry was meant to determine whether or not the Crown had a strong enough case to warrant going to trial. She answered in the affirmative saying yes, that was the main reason for conducting such a procedure. I said thank you for explaining that.
It was around this point in the proceedings that Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston brought up the new item mentioned earlier. She informed the judge that she had just recently received word from Det. Wilson’s “E-Division” office in Surrey, B.C. that additional information had gathered and was being sent to Crown and that the Attorney General’s office was now planning to take the unusual step of attempting to circumvent my right to a preliminary enquiry by going for what the Crown termed “a Direct Indictment”, a process by which I would be forced to go to trial without having the opportunity to argue against the Crown’s charges as laid out in the original Indictment of November 5th, 2012. 
Crown counsel Johnston then informed the judge that no final decision had been made as of today but that she expected the Attorney General’s office would have their final decree in place prior to the next court appearance this coming May 28th, 2013. At this point Cst. Wilson was sending the additional to Crown via a thumb drive or memory stick and that I would also be receiving a copy of whatever new “evidence” they had come up with in their “ongoing investigation”.
All that covered the judge then looked at me. I gave her a sort of dazed and confused look and she, half-smiling and half-laughing, apologized for all the apparent incertitude and then did her best to provide me with a general overview of what had transpired, ended by saying that everything would be postponed until the return of Judge Morgan on May 28th, 2013. 
—–
[Editorial comment: The new item of going for a Direct Indictment on the part of the Attorney General’s office still remains a mystery to me at this point. They are obviously not happy with my wanting to have a preliminary enquiry which is standard procedure in most cases. They are also planning to introduce additional evidence or information into the case. Where would that evidence come from? One can only assume that it comes from whatever additional posts I have been making on the RadicalPress.com website. Why additional evidence in the first place? Didn’t they feel they had enough already? 
Feedback on these issues is always appreciated. 
As Walt Disney used to say at the end of his productions, “Stay Tune Folks!“]
For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone Everywhere, Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
———
PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on. 
The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 

 

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

“Hate” Brawl Charges Collapsing in Edmonton — the Tyranny of “Hate” Squads

Posted on by
“Hate” Brawl Charges Collapsing in Edmonton — the Tyranny of “Hate” Squads
“Hate squads” are political police. Cities with “hate squads” lovingly tote up statistics of “hate crimes.” Actually, virtually none of these reported “crimes” ends up in court and, thus, the statistics really don’t record crimes  proven, but usually overblown accusations. In fact, most of the crimes turn out to be nothing more than graffiti — “Book him, Danno, two counts of magic marker crime!” Hate squads have to do something to justify their existence, there not really being many true “hate crimes” around. That makes them dangerous as they tend to persecute right-leaning dissidents. They are the thought police of political correctness.
 
An incident last year is an outrageous case in point. On March 24, there was a White Pride march in Edmonton. Anti-racists tried to provoke a clash but police kept the two sides apart. So far, so good. We strongly suspect that Blood and Honour leader, Kyle McKee was under police surveillance. Later that evening, there was an altercation outside a liquor store. The defence  has argued all along that Phillip Badrock was assaulted by several East Indians. Two other lads, including Kyle McKee, came to his rescue. The three Whites were arrested and charged.
 
The press had a field day, with much hyperventilating about “hate” and a “racial attack.” The “right-wing” but ultra-Zionist Edmonton Sun (April 17, 2012) led the charge thus under the headline White supremacists arrested over Edmonton racial attack: “Two members and one associate of a white supremacist group have been arrested after a brutal racially-motivated attack in Mill Woods, says the city police hate crimes unit.  Two members of the group, Blood and Honour, and two associates, approached a man inside the Liquor Depot around 11:30 p.m. on March 24, making derogatory comments and racial slurs.

The altercation ended but started again outside the store. That’s when things turned ugly.

Const. Alex Thomas of the city police hate crimes unit says the victim received bite marks to his hand, and was stabbed in the shoulder with a piece of broken glass after a bottle was smashed over his head.

It was one of the most severe attacks Thomas has seen.

“It’s nothing that he could have changed. He couldn’t have said anything different, he was just being himself,” said Thomas, noting the man was there with two other friends, one of whom was also assaulted, but his injuries weren’t as severe. …

 

“It was a traumatic event for everybody in the sense they were also dumbfounded as to how did this guy bring this upon himself. He really didn’t.”

Charged in connection with the attack are Kyle McKee, 26, of Calgary, Bernard Miller, 20, and Philip Badrock, 44, of St. Albert. Both Miller and Badrock are charged with assault causing bodily harm.

Police said all three are confirmed to be involved with the white supremacist group Blood and Honour.

Following the arrests, a hate crimes investigator was sent to Calgary to execute search warrants at McKee’s residence. The search resulted in the seizure of numerous weapons, including shotguns, rifles, ammunition, knives and machetes.

McKee is charged with 15 weapons-related offences in addition to two assault-related charges.” 

 

Const. Alex Thomas, an East Indian on the hate squad told the CBC (April 17, 2012) “Police will recommend to the judge the assault be treated more severely,  because the motivation was hate, said Thomas.’We believe it’s a hate crime and we will be providing evidence to support  that,’ said Thomas.’These guys are cowards,’ he said. ‘These guys will attack a person two on  one, three on one, four on one.”It’s basically because of their hate towards them. It’s nothing the victim  has done.'”

 Miller and Badrock were released on bail.

They  have spent a fortune on legal costs. Kyle McKee a charismatic young leader was warehoused on remand for 13 months. So, now, despite all the trial in the media and the sturm und drang about “hate”,  the case is collapsing. Much to the chagrin of the “anti-racists” (they’re really anti-White) at Anti-Racist Canada Blotspot or is it BlogSpot, Kyle McKee was released yesterday for time served (13 months) for possession at his Calgary home of a legal shotgun — denied to him because of a prohibition. And the charges stemming from the “most severe”, “brutally racially-motivated” and “cowardly” attack, as described by hate squaddy Thomas? The charges against Kyle McKee have been dropped! of “hate crimes.” Actually, virtually none of these reported “crimes” …ends up in court and, thus, the statistics really don’t record crimes  proven, but usually overblown accusations. In fact, most of the crimes turn out to be nothing more than graffiti — “Book him, Danno, two counts of magic marker crime!” Hate squads have to do something to justify their existence, there not really being many true “hate crimes” around. That makes them dangerous as they tend to persecute right-leaning dissidents. They are the thought police of political correctness.

An incident last year is an outrageous case in point. On March 24, there was a White Pride march in Edmonton. Anti-racists tried to provoke a clash but police kept the two sides apart. So far, so good. We strongly suspect that Blood and Honour leader, Kyle McKee was under police surveillance. Later that evening, there was an altercation outside a liquor store. The defence  has argued all along that Phillip Badrock was assaulted by several East Indians. Two other lads, including Kyle McKee, came to his rescue. The three Whites were arrested and charged.

The press had a field day, with much hyperventilating about “hate” and a “racial attack.” The “right-wing” but ultra-Zionist Edmonton Sun (April 17, 2012) led the charge thus under the headline White supremacists arrested over Edmonton racial attack: “Two members and one associate of a white supremacist group have been arrested after a brutal racially-motivated attack in Mill Woods, says the city police hate crimes unit.   Two members of the group, Blood and Honour, and two associates, approached a man inside the Liquor Depot around 11:30 p.m. on March 24, making derogatory comments and racial slurs.
The altercation ended but started again outside the store. That’s when things turned ugly.
Const. Alex Thomas of the city police hate crimes unit says the victim received bite marks to his hand, and was stabbed in the shoulder with a piece of broken glass after a bottle was smashed over his head.
It was one of the most severe attacks Thomas has seen.
“It’s nothing that he could have changed. He couldn’t have said anything different, he was just being himself,” said Thomas, noting the man was there with two other friends, one of whom was also assaulted, but his injuries weren’t as severe. …

“It was a traumatic event for everybody in the sense they were also dumbfounded as to how did this guy bring this upon himself. He really didn’t.”
Charged in connection with the attack are Kyle McKee, 26, of Calgary, Bernard Miller, 20, and Philip Badrock, 44, of St. Albert. Both Miller and Badrock are charged with assault causing bodily harm.
Police said all three are confirmed to be involved with the white supremacist group Blood and Honour.
Following the arrests, a hate crimes investigator was sent to Calgary to execute search warrants at McKee’s residence. The search resulted in the seizure of numerous weapons, including shotguns, rifles, ammunition, knives and machetes.
McKee is charged with 15 weapons-related offences in addition to two assault-related charges.”

Const. Alex Thomas, an East Indian on the hate squad told the CBC (April 17, 2012) “Police will recommend to the judge the assault be treated more severely, because the motivation was hate, said Thomas.’We believe it’s a hate crime and we will be providing evidence to support that,’ said Thomas.’These guys are cowards,’ he said. ‘These guys will attack a person two on one, three on one, four on one.”It’s basically because of their hate towards them. It’s nothing the victim has done.'”
Miller and Badrock were released on bail.They  have spent a fortune on legal costs. Kyle McKee a charismatic young leader was warehoused on remand for 13 months. So, now, despite all the trial in the media and the sturm und drang about “hate”,  the case is collapsing. Much to the chagrin of the “anti-racists” (they’re really anti-White) at Anti-Racist Canada Blotspot or is it BlogSpot, Kyle McKee was released yesterday for time served (13 months) for possession at his Calgary home of a legal shotgun — denied to him because of a prohibition. And the charges stemming from the “most severe”, “brutally racially-motivated” and “cowardly” attack, as described by hate squaddy Thomas? The charges against Kyle McKee have been dropped!

The Edmonton Journal  (May13, 2013) reports: ” The Calgary-based leader of the white supremacist group Blood and Honour group received a 13-month sentence Monday for possession of a shotgun while subject to four court-ordered weapon prohibitions.
Kyle Robert McKee, 27, pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon.  When officers searched his rental home for the clothing, they found a 12-gauge shotgun and shells in his desk drawers. Finlayson said the shotgun’s barrel was sawed off, but not to the point where it would be considered an illegal weapon.
Due to assault and weapons convictions dating to 2006, McKee was under four court orders not to possess guns.
‘There’s no evidence of him threatening anyone with the firearm or using it in anyway,’  Finlayson said. ‘He would have known he’s not to have any firearms or ammunition in his possession.’
Defence layer Naeem Rauf said his client did not own the shotgun, but admitted it was in his possession. After serving 13 months in custody since his arrest, McKee no longer has any time left to serve of his sentence and was expected to be released shortly from the Edmonton Remand Centre…  . McKee originally faced charges of assault and assault causing bodily harm in connection with the Liquor Depot assault, but those charges were stayed Monday.”

There’s a publication ban after the preliminary hearing into the assault charges against Miller and Badrock. Let’s just say, without going into details, the police case is tottering, indeed, collapsing. A little birdie tells us there are changes over at the “hate squad.”

No, the only “hate” in this sorry incident was the targeting of these three men by the police and the ever compliant media for nothing more than being White activists.
PROTECT FREE SPEECH: ABOLISH ALL “HATE SQUADS.See More

 

 

The Edmonton Journal  (May13, 2013) reports: ” The Calgary-based leader of the white supremacist group Blood and Honour group received a 13-month sentence Monday for possession of a shotgun while subject to four court-ordered weapon prohibitions. Kyle Robert McKee, 27, pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon.  When officers searched his rental home for the clothing, they found a 12-gauge shotgun and shells in his desk drawers. Finlayson said the shotgun’s barrel was sawed off, but not to the point where it would be considered an illegal weapon.
Due to assault and weapons convictions dating to 2006, McKee was under four court orders not to possess guns.
‘There’s no evidence of him threatening anyone with the firearm or using it in anyway,’  Finlayson said. ‘He would have known he’s not to have any firearms or ammunition in his possession.’
Defence layer Naeem Rauf said his client did not own the shotgun, but admitted it was in his possession. After serving 13 months in custody since his arrest, McKee no longer has any time left to serve of his sentence and was expected to be released shortly from the Edmonton Remand Centre…  . McKee originally faced charges of assault and assault causing bodily harm in connection with the Liquor Depot assault, but those charges were stayed Monday.”

 

There’s a publication ban after the preliminary hearing into the assault charges against Miller and Badrock. Let’s just say, without going into details, the police case is tottering, indeed, collapsing. A little birdie tells us there are changes over at the “hate squad.”

 

No, the only “hate” in this sorry incident was the targeting of these three men by the police and the ever compliant media for nothing more than being White activists.

PROTECT FREE SPEECH: ABOLISH ALL “HATE SQUADS.

 

Political Correctness Rules — Toronto Teacher Fired for Handing Out “Inappropriate” Jokes

Posted on by

Political Correctness Rules — Toronto Teacher Fired for Handing Out “Inappropriate” Jokes

Political correctness is Puritanism without God. It is a grim, cramped, mean miserable form of tyranny. Jeff Jones is a popular, well-thought-of drama teacher at Toronto’s Oakwood Collegiate,. He handed out a page of sexual and racial jokes to his grade 9 and 10 drama class. Students in groups were to choose five of these jokes and develop them into a skit. These are jokes that are part of the students’ world, however “inappropriate” — to use the politically correct catch-all denunciation — they might be. For thias, he was fired, as the Toronto Star (March 6, 2013) reports:

“An Oakwood Collegiate drama teacher who handed out seven pages of violent and racist jokes to his students as part of an assignment has been fired.

The Toronto District School Board confirmed Wednesday that Jeff Jones has been dismissed.

Jones was put on “home assignment” after parents complained he had distributed a handout filled with jokes about blondes, sexual violence and dead babies.

Trustee Maria Rodrigues, who oversees Oakwood, said Wednesday she “fully supports the decision made by the board of trustees tonight to terminate Jeff Jones.”

“I am beyond disappointed that this occurred at Oakwood and that students were subjected to this inappropriate behaviour,” she said. …

 

The Star reported Jones handed out 100 jokes to his grades 9 and 10 students in early January and asked them to develop a comedy skit based on five jokes on the list.

Some parents were outraged by the assignment and complained; others thought the incident was blown out of proportion.

Ben Kutsyuruba, an expert in ethical and legal issues in the classroom at Queen’s University, said the jokes were “very explicitly inappropriate” and breached the ethical standards enforced by the Ontario College of Teachers.

Reaction to Jones’ dismissal was swift, with some former students and parents suggesting it was a loss to the school and education system.

“I think it’s terrible,” former student Samuel van Schaik Muir told the Star. The 23-year-old professional actor credited Jones with steering him into his chosen career. “I just graduated from an acting program at the University of Windsor . . . and it was Mr. Jones himself who encouraged me to do it.

“He was a great drama teacher. Yes, of course his methods were controversial. But he had nothing but the utmost respect for his students.”

Parent Helena Soukup, whose daughter took civics and drama with Jones, was shocked. “There has been a witch hunt to take him down for whatever reason,” she said. “He’s one of the top two teachers my daughter has ever had. He’s a phenomenal human being.”

Jones taught at Oakwood for eight years. Many of his students credit him with helping them win honours at the Sears Ontario Drama Festival for three years in a row.”

Jeff Jones has been fired from his teaching job at Oakwood Collegiate after he handed out seven pages of blonde and dead baby jokes to students.

 

 

The Star didn’t publish any of the jokes, thus making it difficult for their readers to judge what the controversy was all about.

Jeff Jones grieved his firing, as the Toronto Star (March 7, 2013)reported: ” he Oakwood Collegiate Institute drama teacher fired for handing out violent or sexually graphic jokes about blondes and dead babies as homework isn’t leaving quietly.

“He’s the best teacher I’ve ever had, hands down,” said Kyra Soukup, a 16-year-old Grade 11 student who was in Jones’ class this year. “The fact that he could get fired over something like this is ridiculous.”

A 2011 Star investigation showed that some teachers found to have committed sexual misconduct weren’t fired but transferred to other schools in a practice referred to as “passing the trash.”

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation confirmed that it would be filing a grievance with the board over Jones’ firing.

“We’re going to argue that it’s excessive,” said Doug Jolliffe, president of OSSTF District 12, which is representing Jones. If the grievance is turned down, the union can take the school board to labour arbitration, he said. …

 

Jones was sent home with pay in January, after a parent complained about seven pages of sexist and violent jokes she found in her child’s backpack.

The decision to fire Jones was announced at Oakwood Thursday by principal Ellen Austrom.

Students have launched a petition on Change.org, called Keep Mr Jones at Oakwood, which had 172 signatures as of Thursday evening.

Several students told the Star that the offending assignment had been around for years and that the administration was aware of it but did nothing until they received the parent’s complaint. “

Mississauga Realtor Fired for Circulating Pro-family Views

Posted on by

Mississauga Realtor Fired for Circulating Pro-family Views

Mix in a real estate agent who cites a U.S. study about some ill effects of children being raised by a same sex couple, add a snarly former school teacher who is shocked and appalled and complaints to the local newspaper, the police, the human rights commission and, perhaps, even dear Abby and what do you get? A little community controversy?

 No, not in these mean, politically correct times. The real estate agent is fired. The RE/MAX giant his former employer is running scared and  takes out a huge, grovelling ad “to apologize for the inappropriate communication.” [There’s that vague  catch-all, politically correct term.] “RE/MAX does not tolerate any form of discriminatory behaviour.” (Mississauga News, May 8, 2013)The agent in question expressed an opinion in a flyer distributed to  advertise his services. The only “discriminatory behaviour” was RE/MAX’s firing of this man.

The Mississauga News (May 8, 2013) reported: ” A City Centre real estate agent has been fired for distributing a controversial flyer to residents in Lorne Park and Port Credit earlier this week. RE/MAX Realty One sales agent Andrew Ciastek was let go this afternoon in the wake of publishing what many residents view as homophobic material in a recent newsletter.  
On Wednesday, the Sussex Centre realtor said he will issue a formal apology and make a donation to a local charity of RE/MAX’s choosing. ‘We cannot and will not tolerate any form of discriminatory behaviour,’ said Christine Martysiewicz, director of internal and public relations for RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic Canada. …   The piece in question was a research study saying that unemployment is three times higher among offspring of homosexual couples than those of heterosexual couples.  The study was conducted by Mark Regnerus, a Texas University sociology professor. The flyer cites the report as having been originally published in Social Research Science, although Ciastek says he found it in a copy of Polish .Jon McDonald who lives in the Lorne Park area is just one of the residents up in arms over a "traditional family" article in the home-delivered flyer of a local ReMax agent.
Busybody Complainer and Former Schoolteacher Jon McDonald cost a man his job.
 RE/MAX has been working with Peel Regional Police’s Hate Crime Division and has been informed that no charges will be laid against Ciastek. Lorne Park resident Jon McDonald contacted The News when he saw the flyer Tuesday and filed complaints with RE/MAX, Peel   ‘It’s just not right,’ said McDonald, a retired elementary school teacher  said.”
The Toronto Star (May 2, 2013) reported: “Andrew Ciastek, a sales representative for RE/MAX, distributed the flyers — which said ‘traditional family is the best for the future of the kids’ — to hundreds of homes in the Port Credit and Lorne Park neighbourhoods. ‘I didn’t want to offend anybody . . . I didn’t have bad intentions,’ Ciastek said. Ciastek also told the Star he will apologize ‘because I understand some people were very hurt. It is the right thing to apologize.’”
Of course, intent means nothing to the politically correct. Only the words matter. A privileged minority “might” be offended. Mr. Ciastek should not have offered to apologize, unless he really didn’t believe what he’d written. Why should he apologize for his views.
Notice, as well, that it’s not the science cited by Mr. Ciastek that RE/MAX criticizes, only that he said anything critical of a privileged minority. Truth does not matter.
We have warned that the promoters of the homosexual agenda are one of the biggest threats to free speech in Canada. Christians and people of all faiths who uphold the traditional view of the family beware. The homosexual agenda of silencing critics has claimed another victim: Marc Lemire, Bill Whatcott and now Andrew Ciastek.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

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

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

 

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

 

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

My Memories of Douglas Hewson Christie

Posted on by

My Memories of Douglas Hewson Christie

 

 

I remember when I first  met Doug Christie.  In was in late January or February, 1986 at  a meeting in Toronto.  At the time the Zundel and Keegstra cases  were still in the news.  I had read about Doug in both the mainstream  press and in the “underground right-wing” newsletters.  What  immediately struck me about him as he spoke was his air of authority.    By “air of authority” I do not mean that Doug was arrogant, in fact  far from that.  When he spoke, either to a formal audience or when  he spoke informally to you one could tell that he was someone who knew  what he was talking about.  His warnings about the threats to free  speech were very convincing and prophetic.  His answers to people’s  questions were always precise and to the point.  Friends and relatives  who I later brought to these meetings, some of whom had little knowledge  about Doug, also made this same observation.  I can only regret  that I never got to witness him at first hand in the courtrooms.   I can only guess that the opposition were shaking in their boots each  time he would get up to speak.  

 

When I moved out to  Victoria, BC, in the early 1990s I would see more of Doug Christie.   I joined the work party group who often gathered at his house on Townsend  Road in Saanich.  After we stuffed the envelopes with The Friends of Freedom and The Western  Separatist Papers newsletters we would sit down for drinks and  snacks and to listen to Doug’s latest situation reports.  As  with my first impressions, Doug continued to display his grasp of the  situations whether concerning his court cases, or about provincial,  national and international politics and even local Victoria politics.   The group that gathered monthly at the Christie homestead were varied  in their ethnic and religious backgrounds.  There were Germans  and eastern and central Europeans as well as those of English and Scots  and Irish background like myself.  There were Roman Catholics like  Doug and Protestants like myself.  Some were members of the Western  Canada Concept and others might have been called “soft separatists.”   Whatever our differences we were united in our convictions for free  speech and for integrity in government.

 

There were occasions  when taking our stands meant violent opposition and adverse press coverage.   I well remember the night at the 1992 Orwell Dinner when the Victoria  Police raided the downtown Chinese restaurant and arrested English historian  David Irving.  We all followed Doug to the police station and held  an impromptu protest which made the front page of The [Victoria] Times-Colonist the next morning.  When driving along Blanchard  Street I would look at Doug’s vandalized downtown office with the  graffiti: KILL CAUSE!  In the late 1990s I remember those meetings  where gangs of leftists harassed people and tried to obstruct them from  entering public libraries to hear Paul Fromm, Doug Christie and/or that  other Doug, Doug Collins.  Our little group persevered.       

 

Doug’s activism involved  more than just the courtroom and the political soapbox.  During  the Christmas season of 1996 an unexpected blanket of snow covered Victoria,  which put the city (not used to such weather), in a standstill.   One day I was making my way through the slush around the James Bay area  and I saw a van with Western Canada Concept posted on the side.   I knew that it was Doug Christie.  I waved and Doug took me along  with him to help others whose vehicles were stuck or whose walk-ways  needed to be shovelled.

 

I’ve read that at  Doug’s funeral Fr. Lucian Larre asked the valid question (based on  a country music song) about as to “who is going to fill his boots.”   There is another valid question.  Are we all going to continue  to uphold the legacy Doug fought for?  Not all of us can be lawyers  to fight the battles in the courtroom, but we all had some talent to  contribute to the fight.  Doug was aided by many of us in giving  him moral and financial support over the years.  Many of us wrote  letters in support of him and of the freedom for his clients to state  their views.  Will we keep up our end of the fight against the  tyranny of political correctness in whatever way we can?  Will  the Doug Christie we knew be remembered for posterity, or will the libellous  view from the opposition be trumped?

 

May God give us strength?

 

Yours,

 

 

 

 

 

Alexander David (“Alex”)  Greer

Tax Rebel Jack Klundert Speaks at Doug Christie Memorial in London

Posted on by
Tax Rebel Jack Klundert Speaks at Doug Christie Memorial in London
LONDON, March 24, 2013. At the second of four memorials for  free speech lawyer Doug Christie, tax rebel Jack Klundert of Windsor, Ontario paid tribute to his long-time lawyer and friend. The memorials are being organized by the Canadian Association for free Expression: Toronto, March 23; London, March 24; Edmonton, March 25; and Vancouver, March 26.
“In 1992,” Mr. Klundert recounted, “I heard from Murray Gauvreau that the Income Tax Act was illegal. I was advised to get a copy of Canada’s Constitution. Believe it or not, the Queen’s Printer didn’t have one. I finally got a copy from Ron Gostick.”
“In 1994, I decided to challenge the Income Tax Act. In 1997, I went to court and won,” he said. “In fact, we’ve been to court four times and won three times, However, the Federal Court always overturned our lower court victories. It has been over 17 years of battle” and Doug Christie was his lawyer throughout.Photo
“And the presence of that fine man was the only reason,” he added, “why I had any success at all in fighting the oppression of our freedoms under the repressive Income Tax system. I was seeking freedom in a different way,” the Windsor optometrist explained.
“Doug Christie had a great heart for freedom and for justice,” Mr. Klundert explained. “He is the man God sent me.  Every case we vowed to fight for freedom and for justice and to do God’s will. It is difficult to stand day after day getting flack because you don’t believe in political correctness.”
Doug “bought his cowboy hat to celebrate after winning a case in the expectation of being paid. He wasn’t but he continued to wear it as a celebration of freedom and the unpredictable nature of  the life of a lawyer.”

Photo

Also speaking at the meeting was another Doug Christie client, Malcolm Ross from Moncton, New Brunswick. He lost his teaching position after the Supreme Court upheld a New Brunswick Human Rights Commission finding that his writings and very presence in the classroom created “a poisoned environment” even though he never taught the girl who had complained and she had not even attended the school where he taught.
Meeting chairman Paul Fromm noted that Doug Christie sometimes felt despondent about the threats to free speech in Canada and felt that he had accomplished little. Mr. Fromm reminded Mr. Christie on occasion and has told many audiences across Canada that Doug Christie is a legal giant. He had been to the Supreme Court at least nine times. “He appeared before the Supreme Court so often they had to give him his own dressing room,” Mr. Fromm quipped. “Most lawyers never go to a court of appeal let alone the Supreme Court.”
“Doug Christie got rid of Canada’s arcane ‘false news’ law in the Zundel case, when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1992,” Mr. Fromm noted. “Also,” he added, “Doug Christie gutted the ‘war crimes law’ in the Finta case which went all the way to the Supreme Court. Canada would no longer be able to try people who had not been Canadian citizens for action committed in a foreign country against people who were not Canadians,” he added. “At least this aspect of German-bashing and Slav-bashing, brought in by Brian Mulroney at the behest of the Jewish lobby was overturned.”
“And, while Doug Christie did not live to see the demise of Canada’s notorious “hate law” — Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code — he did develop arguments about Internet communication advanced in the Terry Tremaine case, that may, in future cases. limit this law’s use to hobble free expression on the Internet,” Mr. Fromm concluded.

Emotional Farewell for Free Speech Warrior in Toronto

Posted on by

Emotional Farewell for Free Speech Warrior in

Toronto

TORONTO. March 23, 2013. Friends, clients, admirers and fellow free speech warriors going back to the two Zundel “false news trials” (1984 and 1988) gathered in Toronto today for a memorial to free speech lawyer Doug Christie who died of liver cancer in Victoria, March 11. Marc Lemire who assisted CAFÉ in organizing this meeting, brought several interesting collages of photos of Doug Christie’s life and cases, especially those in Toronto (Zundel, Finta, Lemire, etc.) Michelle Erstikaitis provided a portrait of Mr. Christie and a bouquet of flowers.

Erich Holy of the German World Congress (Deutsche Welt Kongress), a long-time admirer of Mr. Christie, said: “Doug could cast a spell over an audience. We drew inspiration in the battle for free speech from him. … On behalf of the German World Congress, we honour Doug Christie’s memory and extend our condolences to the family of this great man.”

One of Doug Christie’s clients, a teacher persecuted and eventually relieved of his teaching position for expressing his religious and political views, especially opposition to Zionism, on his own time, spoke next. Malcolm Ross from Moncton, New Brunswick recalled: “For 10 years I was fighting and testifying as to my belief that Canada was a Christian nation, but that many of the Christian churches are enemies of our Race and our people.” Mr. Ross hailed Doug Christie as a fellow traditional Christian, “but the Christianity we both shared was the masculine Christianity of the Crusades,” he explained.

Recalling the Supreme Court hearing into the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission complaint against him, alleging that his views expressed outside the classroom created a “poisoned environment,” Mr., Ross said “there were 23 lawyers, many of them Jews, versus two Scotsmen. Now, those are pretty good odds,” he quipped. “Then, I was sent away and told I couldn’t assist Doug. So, then it was 23 to one.”

Mr. Ross remembered one of the Supreme Court judges complaining: “This talk by Mr. Ross about the Kingship of Christ makes me very uncomfortable in a pluralistic society.”

“The Supreme Court voted 9 to 0 against me,” Mr. Ross recalled. “Doug said: ‘We’ll go to the United Nations.’ The Canadian Government’s brief was basically that of the Canadian Jewish Congress. We lost there 17-0.”

Amazingly, Mr. Ross recounted, “the Supreme Court of Canada said even though they found no evidence that I had taught my beliefs in the classroom or that I had influenced anyone, still it seemed ‘reasonable’ for them to assume that I had contributed to a ‘poisoned environment.”

Mr. Ross said that, in 1996, “the Supreme Court returned its decision on the Eve of Passover, a Wednesday. The Court usually releases decisions on Thursday. Keith Landy of the Canadian Jewish Congress said the date ‘sent a message.’ It was unusual because it was in the middle of the Christian Holy Week, when Christians remember the sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His glorious Resurrection.”

“We are not defeated when we lose in court,” the New Brunswick teacher told his hushed audience, “but only when we compromise.”

“Doug Christie,” he said, “was a righteous man with a heart of fire.”

“The government of New Brunswick paid the personal lawyer of the complainant David Attis (Atlantic head of the Canadian Jewish Congress) $225,000. They paid my lawyer nothing.”

The main witness against Malcolm Ross was David Attis’s daughter. She had not attended the school where Mr. Ross taught nor had ever seen him. Still, she claimed that anti-Jewish taunts directed at her by several students should be laid at his feet. One boy called her names after she wrestled him to the ground and stuck two fingers into his eye with the goal of ripping out his eye.

“Doug was a good friend. He enjoyed himself. Indeed, we were the only two people in that court in New Brunswick who seemed to be enjoying themselves,” Mr. Ross recalled.

“Doug Christie had a passionate love of freedom and the Red Ensign,” Canada’s traditional flag, Mr. Ross concluded.

Sydney White who lectures on Studies in Propaganda at the University of Toronto read a poem she’d composed called “Censored”. In her introduction, she added: “I have heard Doug Christie speak. Freedom of speech is the most important part of any democracy or republic,” she said. “Canada is becoming increasingly politically correct and factually incorrect.”

Marc Lemire, the only victim to win a Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) case, and who is currently before the Federal Court of Appeals seeking to have Sec. 13 declared unconstitutional, said: “I’ve known Doug for 20 years. I first met him when I was 17. He was one of my heroes. The comments, even in some nasty articles in the press, show how many people loved and admired Doug.”

“Doug was great at cross-examination, like his cross-examination of government witness Karen Mock (of B’nai Brith) in my case. He delivered a forceful summation, December 11, 2011, in my Sec. 13 case in Federal Court.”

Mr. Lemire recalled attending CAFÉ meetings where Doug spoke years ago. “His comments about free speech first brought it alive in me what free speech really means.” Mr. Lemire quoted Helen Keller’s comment frequently quoted by Mr. Christie: “I am only one, but I am one; I cannot do everything, but I still can do something.”

“Doug was aware of the awesome power of the state to crush people, people like Malcolm Ross. Doug made many trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. He would be alone facing many lawyers opposed to free speech. He’d ask: ‘Do each of these lawyers get the same amount of time as me?’ And, when informed that they would, he’d say with that wicked grim of his: ‘That seems fair.’”

“There’s ‘state approved speech’ and then there’s ‘free speech’, Doug would say.

“The life of Doug Christie showed me that one person could make a difference. Doug Christie never refused to do what he could.”

And, to the enemies of freedom, Mr. Lemire sent the warning: “Enjoy your happy dance. Your glee at Doug Christie’s demise will be short-lived. The battle for freedom will continue.”

Another co-organizer of the memorial, Christian Klein, Director of the Historical Society of Mecklenburg and Upper Canada, said: “I am a spokesman for the German survivors of World War II. My group was expelled from Silesia. History has been falsified or only partially told. There has been practically nothing told of the forced expulsion of 16-million Germans or the bombing of German civilians or the German holocaust by bombing.”

“I was very impressed Doug Christie the lawyer. He was often one alone against many. I was shocked as I was there in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and learned that truth was no defence,” Mr. Klein added. “We must keep telling our account of real history.”

Mr. Klein, a talented musician, then sang, accompanying himself on his guitar, a German freedom song from the Napoleonic Wars – Thoughts Are Free.

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten,
sie fliegen vorbei wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger erschießen
mit Pulver und Blei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Ich denke was ich will und was mich beglücket,
doch alles in der Still’, und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren kann niemand verwehren,
es bleibet dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Und sperrt man mich ein im finsteren Kerker,
das alles sind rein vergebliche Werke.
Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken
und Mauern entzwei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Drum will ich auf immer den Sorgen absagen
und will mich auch nimmer mit Grillen mehr plagen.
Man kann ja im Herzen stets lachen und scherzen
und denken dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Ich liebe den Wein, mein Mädchen vor allen,
sie tut mir allein am besten gefallen.
Ich sitz nicht alleine bei einem Glas Weine,
mein Mädchen dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Thoughts are free, who can guess them?
They flee by like nocturnal shadows.
No man can know them, no hunter can shoot them
with powder and lead: Thoughts are free!

I think what I want, and what delights me,
still always reticent, and as it is suitable.
My wish and desire, no one can deny me
and so it will always be: Thoughts are free!

And if I am thrown into the darkest dungeon,
all this would be futile work,
because my thoughts tear all gates
and walls apart: Thoughts are free!

So I will renounce my sorrows forever,
and never again will torture myself with whimsies.
In one’s heart, one can always laugh and joke
and think at the same time: Thoughts are free!

I love wine, and my girl even more,
Only her I like best of all.
I’m not alone with my glass of wine,
my girl is with me: Thoughts are free!

Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, read a tribute to Doug Christie sent by Ottawa-based former diplomat Ian Macdonald.

Mr. Fromm added: Doug Christie “put others in the legal profession to shame. He didn’t just believe in a client’s right to a full and proper defence, he really did believe in freedom of speech: that freedom of expression is the gift you must give to your worst enemy, he told a CAFE meeting in Toronto, December 2, 2012. Many other lawyers lost that belief. Terry Tremaine, later one of Doug’s clients and another Richard Warman free speech victim, called on seven Regina law firms to represent him in a “judicial review” (appeal) against the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision finding him guilty of spreading “hate” on the Internet. Finding out that this was a controversial free speech case running headlong into political correctness, not a single Regina law firm would touch Mr. Tremaine’s case.

Murderers, child molesters, rape-kidnap-murder perpetrators like Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo, or more recently accused murderer and butcher Luka Magnotta, had no trouble finding counsel. The media and other bien pensants would praise their counsel as brave and creative lawyers. Yet, Doug Christie, who stood up for non-violent freethinkers assailed for having unpopular beliefs was often reviled in the press and in the legal profession. It will take a decade or two before the public appreciates what a legal giant and idealist it has lost,” Mr. Fromm concluded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brad Love’s Ten Years Punishment By the Courts for Writing Non-Violent

Posted on by
Brad Love’s Ten Years Punishment By the Courts for Writing Non-Violent
Letters Continues

009

TORONTO. April 25, 2012. “The thousands of dollars I spent to fly back here, to  take 10 days off work, to  rent a car, to fund other expenses are down the drain,” an angry Brad Love told the monthly meeting of the Alternative Forum here tonight. Mr. Love had just learned that his appeal against a brutal 18 month sentence for breach of probation and a further three year political gag order had been postponed. The appeal was to be heard Monday.

 

1.     “The system is sucking me dry,” the Alberta-based oil worker explained. “I was charged four years ago for breach of probation – for sending a package of critical commentary to four Jewish groups, who had given me their permission.” Mr. Love was then under parole conditions stemming from a 2003 conviction, under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code)  for writing non-violent letters to some 20 MPs and other public officials. He had received an 18-month jail sentence and Ontario Judge Hogg had imposed conditions under which he was forbidden to write to “anybody” without their express permission. [Those conditions, incidentally, were imposed in Ontario, not in the Congo or Burma.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The average black crack dealer would get legal aid for free, spend 20 minutes in court and get maybe 60 days in prison,” Mr. Love charged. This marks at least a dozen trips back to Ontario for this simple breach of probation charge.

 

 

“I was abandoned by my pervious lawyer as soon as I was sentenced to prison, last July,” Mr. Love recounted.” After six weeks his new lawyer effected his release.

 

“I am still working at Fort McMurray. All I make now seems to go to my lawyer. I wrote these letters These were my opinions. Let the cards fall where they may. Growing up, I was told by my parents: ‘If you don’t like something, speak up. The politicians work for you,’” he recalled.

 

Well, “the ;politicians waste billions of dollars on foreign aid, aid to Haiti, aid to Mali – I don’t even know where Mali is, training Costa Rica’s police force. I  am 54 years old. I work 84 hours a week and the government takes half. I don’t pay taxes; they take them from me,” he charged.

 

Africa, he argued, “produces children faster than we can print foreign aid money. It seems every time I write about immigration, it’s eight White cops who arrest me, not Blacks,. I hate my own government, not Blacks.”

 

Canada’s business and political establishment “want cheap labour. Every immigrant they bring in means a wage cut. A Somali cab driver in Fort Mac said he came from Toronto to Fort Mac ‘because there are too many fucking immigrants in Toronto for me to make any money.’”

 

Mr. Love is an impassioned and highly entertaining speaker. “I hear to the developing world,” he said. “What ‘developing’? Africa has been there for 100,000 years. They should be sending us money.”

 

He predicts that the trend of bringing in cheap foreign labour – despite high unemployment in Canada – will continue in Fort McMurray. Wages will go down and the good times will be gone.”

Mr. Love seems to be a special target of Ontario’s police. “My lawyer told me: ‘You’re on the police radar. Any contact with the police, contact us.’” On Tuesday, on a noon visit to the liquor store in Mississauga’s Applewood Mall, Mt. Love saw he was being surveilled by a police cruiser. He was questioned and asked had he been drinking. [No.] His ID was carefully scrutinized and he was asked where he was staying.

 

“Everything in this country is a joke, just a fumblebutt system,” Mr. Love said. “the police want an incident, to provoke me to react so that they can seize the bail my parents help put up. “This was the day after cops arrested two black bank robbers who jumped a counter and shot two people and some other blacks who robbed people on the subway.” Despite this real crime, “they still have time to watch Brad Love, who is not even from this province.”

 

Despite efforts by Mr. Love and CAFÉ, the Canadian media seems studiously uninterested in Mr. Love’s battering and gagging by the courts. Discussing these costly and prolonged proceedings, Mr. Love noted that no lawyer or judge has ever asked: “Brad, how are you coping?”

 

Some years ago, he recalled, he wrote letters to the Minister of Immigration critical of Haitians. “Four cops showed up and told me: ‘We don’t like the tone of your letters.”

 

“With what they’ve spent persecuting me they could have built a large home for seniors and done something for this country,” he said.

 

Still, Brad Love is a happy warrior: “I am still smiling. I go to work every day. I drink my beer. I snub the government and look at this country as a joke. Sodomy is legal. Gay marriage is legal,” but free speech is illegal.”

 

“People know I’m right, but they are afraid. They say: ‘I don’t want to be you, Brad.’ People fear losing their house, their bank account, their job. If you’re a dissident, there’s no safety net for you. The government wants to see you broke and living in a ditch.”

 

“It’s hard to believe in my own country,” he added. The decade-long persecution has affected my friends and my family,” he added. “I am not a skinhead, I am not a neo-Nazi. I am not a racist. But I do not like what the government is doing with my money.” – Paul Fromm