Arthur Topham Explains His Response to Warman’s Libel Threat

Arthur Topham Explains His Response to Warman’s Libel Threat
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
Let’s never confuse Canada’s cankered legal system with fairness or justice. It may be the “law” but it isn’t necessarily fairness or justice.
Free speech hero and anti-Zionist advocate Arthur Topham, is currently fighting a very serious Sec. 319 (“hate law”) charge, instigated by Richard( the chronic complaint filer Warman) and Harry (“Mr. B’nai Brith B.C.”)  Abrams. Not surprisingly, the complaint was swiftly adopted by the political police out in BC, the RCMP hate squad headed by Det. Const. Terry Wilson, ex of the London Police Service hate Squad.
These charges could send Mr. Topham to prison for two years. His silencing has for some years been the goal of Canada’s thought police. In 2007, Harry Abrams who had previously tried to use the B.C. Human Rights Commission to silence war hero and columnist Doug Collins, filed a complaint against Arthur Topham and his Zionist-critical website radical[press.com. under Se. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (truth is no defence, intent is no defence).  When Marc Lemire won his case —  against yet  another  Warman complaint — on September 2, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal adjourned the several outstanding complaints, including the one against Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com, sine die.
So, Abrams and Warman, in an effort to silence Mr. Topham, then launched the present Sec. 319 “hate law” charges.
Back in 2005, speaking to the violence-prone Anti-Racist Action (ARA) and then in a boastful and expansive mood, Mr. Warman explained the tactic he called “maximum disruption.” He indicated that, depending on the circumstances and his mood, he’d file Sec. 13 (now repealed by Parliament) human rights complaints and or Criminal Code Sec. 319 complaints against his ideological targets.
He didn’t add, but he might have, that should the victims criticize him, they might find themselves subject to a libel suit. In fact. Mark and Connie Fournier of the pro-Zionist but pro-free speech FreeDominion.com website, who face no fewer than three Warman libel suits, indicate that, by their reckoning, Warman has filed or threatened to file no fewer than 60 (yes, sixty!) defamation actions against critics over the past 13 years.
So, in the effort to silence Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com, the Sec. 13 having been stymied, Mr. Warman and Abrams filed the Sec. 319 “hate law” charges. When the gutsy Arthur Topham refused to be silenced and continued to post his contentious critiques of Richard Warman on his website the latest libel threat was issued. Maximum disruption!
I’ve been there. From 2003 to final resolution, when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear our appeal in 2009. CAFE and I fought a Richard Warman libel suit aimed at CAFE’s efforts to defend the victims of Warman’s Sec. 13 complaints,. Ultimately, I can’t explain it or believe it, but Madame Justice Monique Metivier decided that our calling Richard Warman a “censor” was libellous. So, here’s one state-protected person around whom we must tip-toe carefully.
I know it’s not the free Anglo-Saxon system of open discussion we thought we’d inherited, but it’s the perverse legal reality of the present in a Canada with a judicial system, at least at the very top, firmly in the control of the cultural Marxists. We llive in enemy occupied territory where many truths can be told, if at all, only with great circumspection.
Purists may say that Arthur should fight and stand by the truths of his postings. The problem is that justice in this poxy country, as even several of the members of the current Supreme Court have noted, is beyond the means of the ordinary man. Arthur Topham has elected to withdraw from the libel fight and accept the imposition of extreme caution in mentioning the name of Canada’s legal establishment’s fair haired boy, Richard Warman and, despite his destitution, compensate the posh Ottawa civil servant $500 for his legal fees. Those who might criticize Mr. Topham should answer the simple question: “Along with your keyboard commando critique, have you sent him a cheque for $50,000 to carry on the fight?” A libel case would almost certainly be held for the complainant’s convenience close to home in Ottawa. How is the impoverished Arthur Topham,who can barely afford the gas money to go to Quesnel, to fund a libel case that could last weeks in far-off Ottawa? Mr. Topham seems to think the action would be fought in Toronto. Warman’s previous modus operandi suggests the venue would actually be his present home town of Ottawa.
The Ontario courts in Ottawa are hostile territory. A lawyer told me some years ago “the courts here don’t like you guys” — meaning free speech supporters. That would be the hostile environment in which Westerner and free thinker — both outsider groups in Ottawa  — Arthur Topham would have to fight. Justice in Canada today is for the rich or the government-funded, not for rock scrabble freethinking pensioners like Arthur Topham.
Warman’s threat of libel action, of course, comes strategically just as Arthur Topham’s “hate law” case begins. It is difficult, with limited resources, to fight on two fronts. Warman, who has, one assumes a full time job somewhere in the Department of National Defence, seems to somehow find endless time for a legion of lawsuits and complaints. Outside the weird Ottawa world, a libel suit consumes one’s life. I know, having been there with a previous Warman defamation action that gobbled up six years (!) of my time and effort, interestingly at the very time I was being hounded by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation in a prolonged and equally costly action to take away my teaching certificate for expressing on by own time, off school property, my political beliefs. 
Bottom line: Arthur Topham continues to need and shall receive our support for his battle against the forces of thought control seeking to send him to jail for his views through the current Sec. 319 “hate law” charges he presently faces.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Screen Shot 2013-07-07 at 8.47.05 AM.png
RadicalPressNewsLetter
 Warman Libel Suit Threat Against Radical Press
by
Arthur Topham
July 22, 2013
“He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day;
But he who is in battle slain,
Can never rise to fight again.”
~Oliver Goldsmith, (1728 – 1774),
Art of Poetry on a New Plan, Vol. 2
On the evening of Wednesday, July 3, 2013 a car drove up my driveway and parked in the yard. An elderly man got out holding a large brown envelope in his hand and was proceeding to walk toward the house when I came out on the front porch. He asked, “Are you Arthur Topham?” I replied, “That depends on who you are.”
He broke out in a kind of a half laugh, half grin and came up to hand me the envelope. I asked him what it was and he again replied in a rather subdued tone that it was from some law firm from back east with a name he couldn’t pronounce. At that point my wife also walked out on the front steps and asked him point blank, “Is it from Richard Warman?” He said no, but he thought it mentioned his name and had something to do with him.
As he walked away, as if to cover his back, he mumbled something about being “only the messenger”.
I went back into the house and sat down at the kitchen table, opened the envelope and read the enclosed letter. It was from Jeff Saikaley of the law firm of Caza Sailaley out of Toronto. It began, “Dear Sir: Re: Richard Warman Libel Notice.”
The origin of the supposed offending, libellous and defamatory piece was an article by Marc Lemire which I had received from him December 31, 2012 titled, “Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Attacks upon Freedom of Speech in Canada”. I published it on the RadicalPress.com website January 3, 2013 and added a Preface of my own comments. It was the Preface which Richard Warman was objecting to and using as the basis for his notice.
Having finished reading the letter out loud my wife left the room, obviously upset. I went upstairs to my office to consider what my response would be to this latest legal missile from the same person who, along with B’nai Brith Canada’s representative Harry Abrams, had laid the Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against me and RadicalPress.com back in 2012; one that culminated in my arrest on May 16th, 2012 and the seizure of all of my computers, electronic files as well as my firearms.
Not being the type of person who takes threats of this nature lightly I had a lot of things to consider over the next few days, apart from getting ready for the July 9, 2013 court appearance. Having observed Warman’s incessant, vexatious tactics of filing libel and defamation suits against anyone who he felt was not treating him in the manner in which he was accustomed to being treated by those such as the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada like the Canadian Jewish Congress, who, in the past have presented special awards to Mr. Warman for his efforts in combatting what they erroneously perceive to be “racism” and “anti-Semitism”, I realized that this latest assault was one that I would have to deal with quickly if I wanted to avoid yet another lengthy and most likely fruitless legal battle.
Warman was demanding a full retraction and apology for the things I had said about him in my Preface and he also wanted both my comments plus Lemire’s article removed from RadicalPress.com and the retraction posted where the article once was and left there permanently. I was to post the retraction/apology as the lead article on the website for five days in a row as well.
After deliberating on this ultimatum I contacted some of my legal friends for advice and it was suggested that given my overall situation with respect to the already onerous legal burdens now before me that it would be best to bow out of this additional brawl with Warman and avoid what would likely be the inescapable result.
Having no funds to hire a lawyer was the first consideration that I had to face. Given that this libel threat would be a civil suit there would be no possibility of obtaining a Rowbotham application as in my present sec. 319(2) criminal charge, also brought on by Warman. Without counsel the case would likely be heard in Toronto and that would necessitate my having to travel across Canada in order to fight it. Given that I struggle to find enough gas to get into Quesnel, a distance of approximately 30 km, the chances of finding the fuel and money to survive a trip out to Toronto (or possibly more than one trip) would be extremely thin if not impossible. Then of course was the possibility of being found guilty and having to face a huge fine which, because I wouldn’t be able to afford to pay it, would likely mean a judgment registered against my home. Given all of these factors it was easy to see (being a placer miner or not) that I was between a rock and a very hard place. Having placed my pawn in the direct path of Warman’s queen there was little left for me to do but retract.
On July 8th, 2013 I replied to Warman’s lawyer and stated the following:
I am in receipt of your June 27, 2013 letter which was hand delivered to me on the evening of July 3, 2013.
I have read it through and given it my full consideration.
Given the fact that I am currently facing two legal challenges to my constitutional right to freedom of speech on the Internet, i.e. a Section 13(1) complaint plus a Section 319(2) CCC which your client Mr. Richard Warman, along with Mr. Harry Abrams, conspired to initiate against me, I recognize that a third legal action is beyond my present ability to meet.
Mr. Warman, as I am confident you are well aware, knows full well that I am presently without legal counsel due to the untimely death of my former solicitor Mr. Douglas Christie and that my financial situation is such that, of necessity, I am currently forced to represent myself pro ce in both the Sec. 319(2) charge and the stayed Sec. 13(1) complaint pending the outcome in the Warman v Lemire appeal now before the federal court. A third civil libel suit wherein I would be basically at the mercy of forces beyond my immediate capacity to deal with is therefore not an option for me.
I recognize that I am caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place and therefore am willing to meet Mr. Warman’s demands, as contained in your letter of June 27, 2013, to publish a complete retraction and apology for the allegations contained in my January 1, 2013 Article entitled “Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Attacks upon Freedom of Speech in Canada from Marc Lemire at freedom site.org” located at URL http://www.radicalpress.com and a unique website page containing the Article at http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1877. 
Prior to removing said Article from www.radicalpress.com I would like written confirmation from your office stating that in doing so the matter would be concluded and no further vexatious repercussions would arise from the Article.
As well I will do everything in my capacity as the copyright holder to have all third party republications of my Article removed.
Please advise if these steps are sufficient to meet your client’s demands and if so I will proceed to fulfil them immediately.
On July 11th, 2013 I received a reply from Jeff Saikaley stating:
Dear Mr. Topham:
 
Thank you for your note.  I confirm that if you fulfill the conditions outlined in my letter of 27 June 2013 within 24 hours and pay Mr. Warman’s expenses of $500 incurred to date no later than 15 calendar days from this email, then Mr. Warman is prepared to not proceed with the libel action against you.
 
I wrote Saikaley back confirming that I would immediately attend to fulfilling all the demands stated in his initial letter and that I would send the $500.00 blood money before the allotted time period ended.
Following that I sent out an appeal to my list asking for financial help in raising the money to pay Warman. I’m extremely happy and grateful for the fact that help came in time to meet the deadline. I am still awaiting final confirmation from Warman’s lawyer that he received the postal money order that I sent off to him via registered snail mail. Once that is done then hopefully this will be the end of it.
Should anything further arise of a weird nature I will alert readers to it but as it now stands it looks like this episode in the history of Canada’s struggles to maintain the right to freedom of speech is now over.
My sincerest thanks on behalf of myself and my dear wife for all the support and financial assistance that was forthcoming. God bless you all.
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
——

 
PLEASE NOTE: Now that Section 13 is dead that still leaves me having to carry on with my own Section 319(2) criminal charge laid against me by Richard Warman and Harry Abrams. With the untimely death of my former lawyer Douglas Christie I am all the more in need of financial support in order to carry on the fight to retain my fundamental rights to publish on the Internet. 

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

Demented Jewish, Atheist, Self-hating Southerner, Homosexual Activist Assails A Christian Preacher — He Does His Causes Proud

 Demented Jewish, Atheist, Self-hating Southerner, Homosexual Activist Assails A Christian Preacher — He Does His Causes Proud
Don’t know if you saw this one so I thought I’d pass it along. It was making the rounds a few weeks ago, so you might have seen it already. You really have to watch the whole thing. The ‘star’ of the video is a representative of several favoured groups and causes, and none of them are well-served by this free advertisement! Whoever said there’s no such thing as bad publicity needs to watch this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43WJ4AlOI2Y


B.

YouTube – Videos from this email

Brad Love Gets Bail Conditions Amended — Now Can Send Father’s Day Card

 

Brad Love Gets Bail Conditions Amended — Now Can Send Father’s Day Card

FORT MCMURRAY, ALBERTA. July 11, 2013.There are times when you think the Canadian judicial system has been transplanted from North Korea or some similar despotism. When inveterate letter writing Brad Love was arrested back On May 13 on seven counts of “harassment” and “sending scurrilous material” through the mail. His initial bail conditions, in addition of $2,000 of his money, would have made Kim Jong-On of North Korea blush: Mr. Love was not to “mail, e-mail or text any person.” That’s right, nobody! He couldn’t even send his own ailing father a Father’s Day card. Nor was he to communicate in any way “with any public office holder.”
To be clear, none of Mr. Love’s written or phone communications contained threats. He was merely his usual forceful and opinionated self about such issues as foreign aid (opposed), Third World immigration (opposed) and wasteful politicians (strongly opposed). But today’s media and political class are very nervous and scared of forceful and opinionated people. The police have targeted Mr. Love for over 20 years.


Using arguments and case law prepared for him by CAFE, Mr. Love successfully argued today for a change in these bail conditions. “I got my mailing (e-mailing and texting) rights back and I also regained the right to contact public officials, except the ones he was accused of contacting in the charges. But, I didn’t get my money back,” he added.
I explained: “Yes, I”e contacted the newspaper (Fort McMurray Today) and the radio station and I once had a public give-and-take with the local OXFAM representative. But it was two guys having a conversation. How does that become ‘harassment’?” he asks.
The Judge noted: “I must caution you. You have a prior history” of controversy.
Mr. Love observes: “My past was not part of any record disclosed oe me. This is a bit of an impropriety!”
In the long dragged out, victim breaking process that is Canadian legal proceedings these days — Mr. Love must again take time off work –, he is back in Court, July 24 for his next appearance. “It’s to set a date for the preliminary hearing. I will be asking for disclosure,”  Mr. Love added. ___________________________
If you want to help CAFE in helping Brad Love and in our  battle for free speech in Canada, use the coupon below to send a contribution. CAFE, Box  332, Rexdale, Ontario,  M9W 5L3
___    Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s ambitious campaign for free speech across Canada   in 2013, to support Brad Love and other free speech victims and to intervene in Federal Court in the Marc Lemire Internet freedom case.
___Please renew my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
$___  Doug Christie booklet order from back of this coupon.
Please charge ______my VISA#_____________________________________________  ___________________
Expiry date: __________ Signature:________________________________________  _______________________________________
Name:_____________________________________________  _______________________________________
Address: __________________________________________________  ________________________________           
__________________________________________________  _____Email______________________________

Doug Christie Free Speech  Booklets

For 30 years, Doug Christie, the Battling Barrister, has been Canada’s outstanding free speech attorney. He passed away of liver cancer, all too young, on March 11, at age 66. Order his outstanding free speech booklets published in C-FAR’S Canadian Issue Series.
__ The Zundel Trial & Free Speech by Douglas Christie (1985) $4.00 __  Thought Crimes Trial: The Keegstra Case by Douglas Christie (1987) $4.00 __   Free Speech IS the Issue by Douglas Christie  (1990) ($5) [Tick booklets you want here and indicate the number and enter dollar amount on the other side of this coupon

Regina v The Radical Press: Legal Update #14

Regina v The Radical Press: Legal Update #14

July 11th, 2013 
by Arthur Topham

CanadaScalesofJusticeFinalcopy

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #14

July 11, 2013

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

On Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 I once again donned my suit and tie and along with my dedicated wife drove into the small city of Quesnel in order to attend court on the matter of the Sec. 319(2) CCC charge and arrest for the purported crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ originally brought on by B’nai Brith Canada’s Harry Abrams and serial Section 13 complainant Richard Warman.

At my last appearance on May 28th, 2013 I had expected to find out whether or not the Crown’s new strategy of going for a “direct indictment” instead of allowing me to have the customary preliminary hearing in order to determine whether they had a strong enough case to move forward to a trial by judge and jury it turned out that the B.C. Attorney General’s office had still not made up its mind. As a result Judge Morgan was forced to extend the time period further and set a new date of July 9, 2013, one which Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston felt would give the AG’s office more than sufficient time to determine whether to go ahead with Crown’s proposed unusual move.

It was a welcome relief for my wife and myself to finally get a month and a half off from the seemingly endless and onerous legal harassment that’s been going on since May of 2012. Unless someone has been forced to run through this gauntlet of appearance upon appearance combined with never-ending and surprising changes whenever they do appear it’s hard to imagine the stress and strain that it puts upon a person or a relationship in the case of a married couple. Now we basically could get on with our lives for a few weeks at least and enjoy a little peace and quiet while the Crown was making up its mind as to what direction the proceedings would take.

June passed without any word on the direct indictment and July also brought forth nothing in the way of new disclosure on this matter. Finally on Monday, July 8, 2013, the day prior to my appearance I received an email letter from CC Johnston containing a one line statement, “The Crown will not be filing a direct indictment on file 25166-5.”

Knowing that the Attorney General’s office would not be going for a direct indictment was good news and meant that at least now there was a still a glimmer of hope that I might be able to proceed with my Rowbotham application (to get a government funded legal counsel to defend me) and hold a preliminary inquiry to determine the merits of the aforementioned Sec. 319(2) charge.

The time for the appearance was 1:30 p.m. and we were there, as usual, a few minutes in advance. When I checked the docket on the wall outside the lower court room where the proceedings have been taking place I noticed that my name wasn’t on the list! What’s going on now was my first thought. I double checked just to make sure I hadn’t missed it and then decided to go upstairs to the court registry office to find out what was going on when one of the court clerks came by and said that there wasn’t going to be a court appearance for me today and that I should go up to the next floor and see the trial coordinator.

This has been the manner in which the Crown has acted since the beginning of my case. Knowing that I don’t have a lawyer to represent me Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston, when she sent me her email the day before, could easily have informed me at the same time that I wouldn’t have to appear in court and instead ought to see the trial coordinator to set up dates for my Rowbotham application and for the preliminary hearing. But, out of either oversight or spite (and given all of her previous aggressiveness and calculated efforts to have me perceived in the same light as a child pornographer I would venture to say that it’s the latter) she failed to notify of this simple procedure.

So I and my dear wife went into the trial coordinator’s office and discussed the three immediate concerns related to my case. The coordinator was obviously becoming impatient with all the delays over the past months and was determined to set some dates. The first thing on her agenda was to call, via telephone, Keith Evans who is legal counsel for the B.C. Attorney General’s office in order to discuss my Rowbotham application which he is overseeing. There was some banter back and forth between the two parties in order to clarify exactly what was going on. I had submitted my Notice of Application and Affidavit to the AG back on April 23, 2013 and received a package of material back from Mr. Evans on May 11th explaining all the additional information that I was expected to furnish him with prior to a hearing taking place on the matter.

Then, when Crown suddenly decided to go for a direct indictment things changed and I had to wait for verification on that matter prior to completing the Rowbotham application because of the fact that if a direct indictment was going to be the method of proceeding then I would have to make the Rowbotham application out for a lawyer who would represent at the trial stage. If a direct indictment wasn’t going to be method used then I would have to make the application out to get a lawyer to represent me at the preliminary hearing.

Now that we knew what direction the Crown was heading in AG counsel Evans told the trial coordinator that he needed the additional information from me regarding my financial status before proceeding with the Rowbotham application and that then the Crown could set a date for a hearing on the application. The trial coordinator set August 13th, 2013 as the time in which I should have completed the required additional information and furnished AG Evans with it. When I returned to her office on that date we would then fix a date for a hearing on the matter. I would be expected to appear at this determined time and defend myself without counsel as I attempted to justify why I felt I could not afford to hire a lawyer and why I also felt that the case was much too important and complex for me to deal with it on my own. The outcome of this hearing will decide whether or not I will qualify for a government appointed lawyer to assist me in my defense. If I am refused it means having to go it alone without counsel and that could drastically change the nature of the case in undetermined ways.

One further point regarding the Rowbotham application and the preliminary hearing needs to be highlighted here. From the outset of this “hate crime” show trial venture by the Crown there’s been a concerted effort to downplay the preliminary hearing stage of events. Why this is occurring I’m not exactly sure but it’s been happening over and over again to the point where I feel it needs to be discussed. The primary purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether or not the Crown has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. Crown has also been stating that there is a very low threshold which it needs to meet in order for the case to proceed but I believe there are some critical issues which they are overlooking. In my case where the Crown itself (through the actions of the RCMP) broke the law right from the start by issuing an illegal search warrant to Det. Cst. Terry Wilson that then allowed his “Hate Crime Team” to enter my home and steal all of computers, email files and subsequently all of my firearms was a fundamental breach of the Criminal Code of Canada which states under Section 183 that a Sec. 319(2) “offense” does NOT allow for search and seizure of an accused premises and the removal or interception of any private communications or electronic files. My former counsel Doug Christie had allotted 5 days of time in order to deal with this and other matters during the preliminary hearing but in fixing a date the trial co-ordinator booked for only 5 hours on the January 22nd. I will be checking into this further as well as addressing it with counsel should my Rowbotham application prove successful.

Having dealt with that issue the trial coordinator then brought up the matter of my previous application to the court regarding particularization of disclosure. Readers who have been following these updates will know that I applied earlier on for particularization of the evidence so that I could get an idea of what it was that the Crown was planning to use during the trial to determine that I ought to be found guilty of this “hate” crime. All I now have is well over a thousand pages of documents filled with all sorts of articles, online books, etc. that the Crown (via Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit) has been downloading from RadicalPress.com in what it purports to be an “ongoing investigation” to back up their claim that I am guilty of committing said Sec. 319(2) ‘crime’. In order for me to defend myself against these charges I need to know what posts on the website are being used but when the application first came up before Judge Wilson on May 28th, 2013 Crown Counsel Johnston attempted, with a rhetorical flourish of her hand, to simply dismiss the application outright stating that there was no legal precedent or case law that required the Crown to furnish me with any particularization whatsoever. Given that my application was one which had been prepared by my former counsel Douglas Christie and was replete with case law backing it up, all the sound and fury emanating from CC Johnston appeared to signify nothing beyond theatrical antics rather than anything legal and so Judge Morgan determined not to delve further into it.  The trial coordinator asked me if I would like to address the matter when I returned to court on August 13th and I said that would be fine.

The final date to fix was one for the preliminary hearing and already, because of the many delays and circumlocutions instigated by the Crown, this meant that it wouldn’t be taking place until next year. After checking her schedule the trial coordinator chose the date of January 22nd, 2014 for the preliminary hearing with an estimate time of 5 hours allotted. She also set a date of January 7, 2014 for a trial confirmation hearing. All of these proposed dates could possibly change if the Rowbotham application is approved and my new counsel has any concerns over anything.

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″

P.S. As a final parting note I would once again please ask readers to consider helping me out financially with a donation if they can. Please 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.

——

 
PLEASE NOTE: Now that Section 13 is dead that still leaves me having to carry on with my own Section 319(2) criminal charge laid against me by Richard Warman and Harry Abrams. With the untimely death of my former lawyer Douglas Christie I am all the more in need of financial support in order to carry on the fight to retain my fundamental rights to publish on the Internet. 

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

TD Bank Fires Drag Queen Hired to Perform in Toronto Gay Pride Events

TD Bank Fires Drag Queen Hired to Perform in Toronto Gay Pride Events

Political correctness takes stranger and stranger forms and those of us who support free speech sometimes find ourselves supporting some pretty unlikely characters. CAFE has written the Chairman of the Toronto Dominion Bank denouncing the decision to fire a drag queen named Daytona Bitch (no kidding!) whom they’d hired to entertain during Toronto’s Gay Pride Week. The drag queen’s sin in TD’s eyes?  Allegedly  racism.  She/he (?) been hired to act  as TD Canada Trust’s “Pride drag queen.” We’re asking that they give Dayton the wages owed him/her (?) plus $5,000 compensation for the public humiliation of being summarily sacked without a fair hearing.
Xtra (June 27, 2013), a Toronto homosexual newspaper, reported: “Toronto drag artist Daytona Bitch has been fired as the TD Canada Trust Pride drag queen following a recent performance in which she wore what some are calling ‘blackface.’Bitch says she received the news in an email on June 26 that said she will not be performing on the Pride Toronto (PT) stages after PT’s director of development, Ben Freeman, placed a call to the marketing company that booked her gig. The email from Diamond Integrated Marketing states that Bitch’s recent performance was ‘not at all well received by the LGBT community’ and is contrary to TD’s ‘longstanding commitment to diversity.’ Bitch says she was devastated to learn her Pride schedule is now wide open, which means a big financial hit for the popular drag performer. The performance in question, which generated plenty of angry discussion on social media, took place at Crews & Tangos on June 24. Bitch was a judge for Drag Race, and the theme was Caribbean Heat, she says. Bitch dressed as Miss Cleo, an American ‘psychic’ who achieved fame as a spokesperson for a psychic hotline from 1997 to 2003. She planned to read people’s fortunes as part of her act. But before the end of the night, photos were already circulating on Facebook with some calling the performance a “racist minstrel show.” Bitch doesn’t see it that way. ‘I asked a couple people if it was offensive because it’s not blackface in my eyes,’ she says. ‘I went to theatre school. I know what blackface is. It was not a minstrel show. I was doing a character. “The people I asked at Crews & Tangos thought it was hilarious that I was dressed as a big fat black woman.'”
Where to start? Well, first, a drag queen usually is a man dressing up as a woman, and acting exceedingly feminine, with voice, gestures and often imitating in an exaggerated manner female foibles, including bitchiness. Now, isn’t that, to some degree, insulting and offensive to women? Who knows. Apparently not. So, Dayton Bitch’s real sin was not impersonating a woman, but putting on some makeup and impersonating Miss Cleo a Negro television personality from 15 years ago. For that, TD fired her for acting  contrary to “TD’s ‘longstanding commitment to diversity.'” Now, being a drag queen is pretty “diverse.” It’s hard to see how impersonating a Negro woman is somehow less “diverse.”

The TD website boasts how pro-homosexual and pro-“diversity” the bank is. “TD Bank is invested in its commitment to diversity and inclusion and we value the events and initiatives that matter to our employees and customers who we serve. We are not just a sponsor of Pride, but rather a full community partner and supporter of the LGBTA community,” said Robert Pompey, Head of Commercial Management Administration at TD Bank and Co-Chair of the bank’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Allies Subcommittee. TD Bank employee volunteers will participate in the Pride events by marching in the parade, engaging the crowds and distributing giveaways. …The series of Pride festivals is just one part of TD Bank’s unwavering commitment to equality and creating a truly inclusive workplace. In 2013, TD Bank became one of the first banks in the nation to offset the tax burden its LGBT employees incur to pay for domestic-partner benefits. The bank also extended the national conversation on the issue of bullying and teen suicide within the LGBT community by creating the “Make it Better” video, which highlights TD employees and a message of support from TD’s President and CEO, Ed Clark. In fact, TD Bank’s dedication to inclusion was recently recognized by DiversityInc when named one of the Top 50 Companies for Diversity in 2013. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation also distinguished TD Bank as one of “The Best Places to work for LGBT Equality.”
Well, bully for them. One wonders whether their gushy inclusiveness includes supporting traditional child-producing families rather then the aberrant and ultimately anti-family homosexual agenda.
Anyhow all this “diversity” somehow doesn’t include Daytona Bitch who imitated a Negro female. It gets weirder by the minute. And TD Bank customers will be delighted to learn that outgoing TD President Ed Clark is quite the guy too. The TD website burbles:  “Ed has been honoured numerous times for his vision, integrity and strong leadership. … Ed has also received Egale’s* Leadership Award in honor of his leadership in supporting LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) communities, and the inaugural Catalyst Canada Honour, awarded to individuals who have made a critical and visible difference to women’s advancement.”
* EGALE is Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere a major spokesthingy for Canada’s homosexual lobby.
________________________________________________
Canadian Association for Freedom of Expression,

P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON, M9W 5L3
PH: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905 566-4820

Paul Fromm, Director

June 28, 2013

Brian M. Levitt Chairman of the Board The Toronto-Dominion Bank P.O. Box 1 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontario M5K 1A2
Dear Mr. Levitt:
I write to you wearing three hats: I’m a TD customer, a shareholder,  and Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Canada’s leading free speech advocate.
As a customer and shareholder, I strongly opposed to the bank supporting and helping to fund the Gay Pride events in Toronto. Supporting and promoting a tiny fringe is not in keeping with the pro-family values of the vast majority of your customers and shareholders. Whatever monies were spent promoting Gay Pride might have better been devoted to reducing banking fees for your customers or increasing shareholder dividends.
That being said, as a free speech advocate, I must protest your treatment of one Daytona Bitch hired as TD’s Pride drag queen to perform in the Gay Pride Week. She was summarily fired for impersonating a Black television personality.
A drag queen usually is a man dressing up as a woman, and acting exceedingly feminine, with voice, gestures and often imitating in an exaggerated manner female foibles, including bitchiness. Now, isn’t that, to some degree insulting and offensive to women in general? Apparently not. So, Dayton Bitch’s real sin was not impersonating a woman, but putting on some makeup and impersonating Miss Cleo, a Black personality from 15 years ago. For that, TD fired her for acting  contrary to “TD’s ‘longstanding commitment to diversity.'” Now, being a drag queen is pretty “diverse.” It’s hard to see how impersonating a Black woman offends  “diversity.”
The firing of Daytona Bitch is political correctness taken to the absurd. We call on TD to pay the salary coming to this person and $5,000 compensation for the public humiliation of being fired in the middle of the Gay Pride events.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Fromm
Director

Doug Christie on Freedom of Speech in Canada (1991)

Doug Christie on Freedom of Speech in Canada (1991)
Doug ChrArchive]istie Video Memorial Archive]
[Jan 29 1991] (Ottawa, Ontario). Doug Christie speaks about the dangers to freedom of speech in Canada. Doug highlights threats from the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and various Canadian political police forces.
Direct link to YouTube video: http://youtu.be/62P2gYPyGqs

The Enemies of Free Speech & Political Freedom At Work Again in Trying to Nix Bequest to National Alliance

The Enemies of Free Speech & Political Freedom At Work Again in Trying to Nix Bequest to National Alliance
Let’s be quite clear “anti-racists” are anti-White. We are in an all-out war with people who wish to suppress any ideas contrary to their own. No marketplace or ideas for them, free discussion. In their jihad against free speech, nothing is sacred to such people.

 
The sanctity of a man’s will means nothing to people like the well-funded ($125-million war chest)  Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center. They are certainly not suffering from poverty.
.
In an error-riddled article, the National Post (June 28, 2013) reports the latest example of this phenomenon. Beginning  with the headline, the Post manages a serious error or untruth in almost every sentence.
The article is headlined “How a late Canadian coin collector’s $1M estate could be used to revive ‘most dangerous neo-Nazi group in America.” I am reliably informed by sources close to the case that the estate is much more modest, about $250,000, of which the Canadian taxman wants about a third, leaving perhaps $150,000, not chump change but considerably less than the Southern Poverty Law Center alleges with its magic million number.
First sentence: “A U.S. racist group that has been linked to assassinations and bombings is poised to inherit an estate worth as much as $1-million from a late Canadian coin collector, the Southern .Poverty Law Center said Thursday.” The “link to assassinations and bombings” is utterly bogus. The National Alliance was/is an explicitly non-violent group. The Post explains: “The author of The Turner Diaries, a fictional account of a U.S. race war and the apparent inspiration for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Mr. Pierce advocated the creation of a whites-only homeland through the eradication of Jews and other races.” National Alliance founder Dr. William Peirce promoted non-violent political education. The Turner Diaries is a novel — that is, fiction — no different in its violence than a Rambo or James Bond story. Timothy McVeigh, the person alleged to have bombed the Murragh Building in Oklahoma City, was not a National Alliance member. There is also considerable question as to whether he DID, in fact, commit this act or was merely a patsy.
The Post continues: “Before he died in Saint John, N.B., in 2004, Robert McCorkell bequeathed his assets to the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group that waged a three-decade campaign of racist violence in the United States, the SLPC said. While the National Alliance is now basically defunct, Mr. McCorkell’s estate, which the SLPC said is about to be settled, could help revive what at one point was the dominant force of the American neo-Nazi movement.” The National Alliance was NOT involved in violence. As usual, the catch-all smear “neo-Nazi” is used to muddy the waters. The National Alliance was White Nationalist. They did not emulate National Socialism. They did not wear uniforms. In fact, the only “uniform” Dr. Pierce, who held a  Ph.D. in physics, advocated was conservative dress for the young men and women in the movement to be able to recruit their peers. Dr. Pierce, according to Wikipedia, “was descended from the aristocracy of the Old South, descendant of Thomas H. Watts, the Governor of Alabama and Attorney General of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War.”
Then, we’re told by the Post: “While the National Alliance is now basically defunct, Mr. McCorkell’s estate, which the SLPC said is about to be settled, could help revive what at one point was the dominant force of the American neo-Nazi movement. This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Alabama-based civil rights group and a top expert on hate and extremist groups.” Hang on a second, if the National Alliance is “now basically defunct” and “has no money at all”, what is there to revive? And Mark Potok may be a senior fellow or an odd  fellow, but the SPLC is NOT a “civil rights group.” Just the opposite: It is actively opposed to freedom of speech.
The meddling U.S. group is now trying to reach into Canada to nullify Robert McCorkell’s bequest to the National Alliance: “The SPLC has hired Ottawa lawyer Pam MacEachern to examine what could be done to stop the Alliance from inheriting Mr. McCorkell’s estate. She found two cases suggesting the bequest might be halted through the courts. ‘At this point we’re really not sure what we’re going to do next, if anything. But certainly we felt it was important that Canadians knew about this in particular,’ Mr. Potok said. ‘It‘s very rare. This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all.’” It might be noted that Pam MacEachern represented EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) a militant homosexual lobby group in arguing before the Supreme Court of Canada that the normal traditional definition of marriage (a man and a woman!) was unconstitutional. The judicial revolutionaries on the Court agreed and, so, Canada has same-sex marriage. MacEachern also represented anti-Internet free speech complainer Richard Warman in a lengthy libel suit against Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free Expression, alleging that inter alia he had been defamed by being called a “censor.”
And now the man himself, tearing himself away from whatever he does in the bowels of Canada’s Ministry of National Defence: “‘I think it’s possible to challenge the bequest legally,’ said Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and anti-racist activist. He said he hoped either the family or interest groups would step forward to do so.The basis of such a challenge could be that the will goes against public policy as well as Canada’s international legal obligations, which require Ottawa to prevent the financing of groups espousing racial hatred, he said.”
A U.S. source close to the case called the SPLC’s and Warman’s remarks “Orwellian. They seem to want to cancel the Canadian and American legal tradition of respecting a testator’s wishes and intent.” the National Alliance espouses White pride, not hatred. The SPLC-Warman line seems to be that the courts should be able to step in and nullify a will if the bequest goes to an ideology of which they disapprove.
We’ll be keeping an eye on this one.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Robert  McCorkell was recruited into the National Alliance in 1998, and in 2002 lived at the group’s hilltop compound in West Virginia, where he edited the final book written by its founder, William Pierce.

Robert  McCorkell was recruited into the National Alliance in 1998, and in 2002 lived at the group’s
hilltop headquarters in West Virginia, where he edited the final book written by its founder, William Pierce.

Brad Love Cannot Even Mail A Father’s Day Card & Now is Banned from Fort McMurray Library

Brad Love Cannot Even Mail A Father’s Day Card & Now is Banned from Fort McMurray Library
Many Canadians like to pat themselves on the back because we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that, among other things, guarantees us freedom of expression. Don’t count on it. If you happen to criticize the homosexual lobby like the intensely religious Bill Whatcott, the  profoundly Christian-hating Supreme Court says that you must keep silent and keep your religious views to yourself.
 
If you’re Brad Love and like to dash off a letter to a public official or phone up a local editor or opinionated rock radio commentator and share your opinions on foreign aid,  crime, Third World immigration — against all three – forget about it. As Brad Love says: “Ezra Levant criticizes Gypsies and crime and that’s okay. If I criticize Gypsies,  they send the police for me.” 
Photo
 Brad Love & Michelle Erstikaitis at recent CAFE meeting in Toronto
On May 13, the RCMP arrested Brad Love and charged him with seven counts of harassment and mailing scurrilous material to local media and politicians. He was released on $2,000 bail and the sort of gag order even North Korea’s baby-faced dictator Kim Jong-On might find excessive. Mr. Love is not to “mail, e-mail or text any person.” That’s right, nobody! He can’t even send his own ailing father a Father’s Day card. Nor is he to communicate in any way “with any public office holder.”
 A further sheet of conditions dropped off by the RCMP last week instructs him not to contact or come within 200 yards of the residences of Fort McMurray Today editor Melissa McIntosh, rock station disk jockey Nic “The Beard” Lindsay or the city’s mayor and members of the city council.
Brad points out that he never sent any material to the mayor. The bail conditions appear to be an effort by police and the state to render him a non-person and to gag him for many months as his trial may be a year or more away.
Mr. Love appeared in Court Monday morning. He informed the judge: “I have a court order with bail conditions that I cannot talk to any public official. Is it even permissible for me to talk to you?”
The judge said it was,
Mr. Love moved that the Crown be instructed to drop the charges as they were “ridiculous” and “frivolous” and many of the people named had not even complained.
The judge indicated that decision was up to the Crown. Mr. Love’s next appearance in June 17. Brad Love noted that there seemed to be an unusual police presence for what was a brief perfunctory hearing.
As he was leaving the hearing, he was approached by a Cuban man who had been watching the proceedings:  “What you are doing is very brave because the government is after you” the Cuban told Mr. Love. “Be careful.”
“This foreigner got it,” Mr. Love reported with some disgust, “It’s many of my fellow White guys who don’t
get it and won’t talk to me.”
Brad Love is a voracious reader and works his way through several books each week. This past weekend he got a big shock. As he headed into the Fort McMurray Public Library, he was confronted by a security guard. “You Brad Love?” the guard challenged him with an arrogant manner. “You’re banned from the library.” Mr. Love was handed a letter advising him he was banned from the library but was given no reason. The Brad banning geniuses  had apparently sent him the banning letter but had mailed it to the wrong address!
“This isn’t a very bookish town,” Mr. Love said. “I am probably their best customer. This is the same place that has a ‘Freedom to Read Week’ poster,” he observed. He can think of no reason he is being banned.
“I’d phone up and ask or protest, but they’d probably say they don’t like my ‘tone’ and call the cops. It seems as if this whole town has 911 on speed dial,” he added.

B’nai Brith’s Annual “Audit” of Anti-Semitic Incidents is Out: If This Was a Real “Audit”, You’d Fire the Auditor’s Ass

ISRAEL FIRSTB’nai Brith’s Annual “Audit” of Anti-Semitic Incidents is Out: If This Was a Real “Audit”, You’d Fire the Auditor’s Ass

For more than 30 years the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith has published what it calls its annual “audit” of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. Always it is the same dreary breathless  hysteria — things are getting worse. and worse. You’d think the blackshirts were back in town, a synagogue being burned in every city and a pogrom going on just right around the corner. Is any of that happening? No! Canada has the most Israel First government ever. Our Prime Minister has insisted that: “Israel’s values are our values. .. An attack an Israel is an attack on Canada.” [We don’t even say that about our friend and neighbour the United States.]

 The executive summary of the report gives the highlights: ” For over 30 years, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada’s annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents has documented harassment, vandalism and violence targeting both individual Jews, and the Jewish community as a whole. This provides a barometer of the levels of racism in this country in general.

KEY FINDINGS

  • In 2012, 1,345 antisemitic incidents were reported to the League, an increase of 3.7% over the 1,297 cases documented in 2011. Over     the past decade, incidents have more than doubled.

 

 

 

* The iincease in Canada in 2012 is still far below the estimated 30% global rise in antisemitic incidents. There was also a decrease in vandalism against Jewish community sites.

 

 

 

  • ·       The 1,345 incidents include 1,013 cases of harassment (75.8% of the total), 319 of vandalism (23.2%), and 13 of violence (1.0%). 

 

 

 

 

    • Vandalism decreased on average     across Canada by 11.9%, with 319 cases in 2012 compared to 362 in 2011. Violence     decreased for the third year running, with 13 cases reported in 2012,     a significant drop from 24 cases in 2010 and 19 in 2011. Harassment     increased by 7.4% from 916 in 2011 to 1,013 in 2012, including 84     threats of violence.

 

 

There were 521 web-based incidents; about half used social media to harass and threaten others. Web postings and emails included anti-Jewish propaganda from extremist groups advocating violence, hate-filled lyrics and imagery, and Holocaust Denial.”

 

 

 

Notice that almost half — 521 of 1,345 “incidents” were on the Internet: “Web postings and emails included anti-Jewish propaganda from extremist groups advocating violence, hate-filled lyrics and imagery, and Holocaust Denial.” Notice, as well, that questioning or challenging the Hollywood version of WW II — “holocaust denial”  — constitutes an “incident.” Notice further that “hate-filled lyrics and imagery” (pictures?) also constitute “incidents.” Interesting, that hostile actions, as opposed to the expression of opinions have decreased.

 

 

 

The “incidents”, one might conclude are crimes, but almost all are not. There were just  “13 cases of violence reported in 2012.” There is no information as to whether even these really occurred or whether anyone was charged or found criminally guilty. It is all pretty thin stuff. Indeed, only one charge is mentioned, although not specifically – the Sec. 319 charge against Arthur Topham and radicalpress.com

 

 

 

Here’s the incredibly broad definition from the Audit’s Appendix  of “harassment” which constitute 1013 or 75% of the “incidents”:

 

 “Harassment refers to written or verbal actions that do not include the use of physical force. … It includes but is not limited to:

 

* verbal slurs, statements of hate and bias, or harassment.” [Now, that’s defining a term by repeating it!]

 

* stereotyping of Jews, like airing on radio talk shows of ‘characteristics of Jews.’ [Yet, a stereotype’ is merely a generalization based on truth and any reasonable person knows most but not ALL members of a group share these characteristics.]

 

* systemic discrimination in the workplace, schools or campuses. [“Systemic discrimination” refers to any uncongenial events where nothing can be proven against an individual,  apparently, like universities holding an Anti-Israeli Apartheid Week.]

 

* hate propaganda and hate mail, via the Internet, telephone or printed material [Again, “hate propaganda” seems to be merely criticism of Jews or Israel, or views the person reporting them doesn’t like.]

 

 

 

 

 

 Jewish groups have been among the most vocal lobbying for open door immigration, as Kevin Macdonald noted in his book The Culture of Critique. They have been strong proponents of “diversity.” Thus, it is somewhat ironic that one of the growing sources of “anti-Semitism” — usually limited to words – is Moslems, one of the many “diverse” groups brought in by the changes in Canada’s immigration policies in 1965: ” When reviewing the types of messaging we see replicated in many of the incidents under review in this Audit, it seems that certain ethnic/religious groups in this country, even those that came generations ago, may have brought the anti-Jewish hatreds of their native lands with them to Canada. Moreover, there are concerns that some Canadians might continue to come into contact with these prejudices locally, even once established in this country, not just through ongoing connections with anti-semitic online sites operating from abroad, but by local influences. In this context, two particular incidents should be highlighted. In British Colombia, a community-based Muslim paper printed conspiracy theories blaming Jews for a range of alleged crimes and refused to withdraw the article even after complaints. In Toronto, anti-Jewish propaganda was found in the curriculum material of a private Muslim school, which was removed but only after complaints were lodged.
Incidents such as these might partly explain the finding in this Audit of an unprecedented increase in incidents by perpetrators self-identifying as Muslims supportive of Islamist anti-Jewish sentiments – up from 16 in 2011 to 87 in 2012. … While perpetrators from a number of different ethnic/religious backgrounds were involved in these incidents, the one finding that stood out alarmingly was the number of incidents by those identifying them-selves as Muslims, which jumped from 16 in 2011 to 87 in 2012. This suggests a most disturbing trend in which anti-Jewish themes appear to be increasingly infiltrating Canadian civil society via quasi-religious or cultural discourse as well politically-based rhetoric. No other ethnic or religious group of perpetrators came anywhere near this number in 2012. “

 

 

 

Even many Jews are skeptical of the ever increasing number of “incidents” B’nai Brith report. Bernie Farber, then a leading light with the rival Canadian Jewish Congress, noted that there could be a 100 per cent increase in “hate literature” if a pamphleteer who last year distributed 1,000 pamphlets got a few more reams of paper and ran off 2,000 copies.

 

 

Here’s a sample of one month’s worth of representative incidents chosen by the Audit:

 

 APRIL Vancouver, BC – A pastor makes anti-semitic comments during his sermon
Montreal, QC – A prolific blogger tells the media that Chassidic Jews “are religious fanatics trying to create their own laws through intimidation”.
Toronto, ON – In Union Station, the busiest bus terminal in Toronto, walls are spray painted with graffiti saying “Jews are like cancer”. V
al Morin, QC – 15 Jewish-owned cottages are vandalized and defaced with swastikas and slogans such as “F–k Juif.”

 

 What does it add up to? Some petty vandalism. And these “incidents” are chosen as the worst for the month!

The Audit seems to find marches or parades promoting “White Pride Worldwide” to be anti-Semitic incidents: “There were 151 incidents in 2012 related to white supremacist activity, similar to the 145 cases reported in 2011. Marches were reported in Vancouver (BC), as well as Edmonton and Calgary (AB), and London (ON), areas where far-right activity has been recorded in past years. Police were active in countering racist activity on the streets of British Columbia and Alberta, which is likely the reason for decreased attendance at such public events.” The last statement is chilling. What does it mean that police “countered? Did that mean harass the organizers? And why should police “counter” political activity. Isn’t it their role to be politically neutral and keep the peace. Also, not to quibble, but what is slanderously called “White supremacist” often means statements about race — White racial pride — and nothing overtly about Jews? One wonders why these 152 “incidents” are even included in the Audit of anti-Semitic incidents.

 

 So, where is all this hyperventilating leading? As usual, B’nai Brith portrays Jews as a “vulnerable minority.” The 2001 census, instead, found they are Canada’s wealthiest ethnic or religious group. They are heavily represented — out of all proportion to their percentage of Canada’s population [ according to the 2011 census, Jews are 315,120 of a population of 33,476,688 or .94% ] in the mass media and they certainly have the ear of the Harper government.
 
The Audit wants the government “to make Holocaust denial a specific hate crime under the Criminal Code.” Thus Canadians would have to buy into self-serving tribal history or face prison. Just what is “holocaust denial” — questioning the numbers killed? questioning the preposterous proposition that this was “the greatest crime in human history” — the alleged 6-million apparently being worse than the 8-10-million Ukrainians deliberately starved to death by Stalin in the holodomor, 1932-1933, The second anti-free speech demand is nearly as sweeping and Stalinist: “Ban membership in hate groups” Who gets to say what a “hate group” is? And, by the way, mightn’t a group labouring so mightily to take away freedom of speech be seen as somewhat hateful?
 
 This poster, captioned “Jews First, Canadians Second” presumably from the Internet was one of the anti-Semitic “incidents” included in B’nai Brith’s annual Audit.

We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!

We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
Late this afternoon, an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then,  Royal Assent.
Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially,  unconstitutional.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels.
We usually don’t quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? [“Call Susie for a good time — 403 -777-7777” “No, Susie is no fun.”]
However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC, which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes:
“And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there’s nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case.
Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we’ll see how things play out.”
The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality — minus the financial penalties — of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government — NDP, Liberal? — might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don’t kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Photo: We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Late this afternoon, an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then,  Royal Assent.

Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially,  unconstitutional.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels.

We usually don't quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? ["Call Susie for a good time -- 403 -777-7777" "No, Susie is no fun."]

However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC, which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes:

"And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there's nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case.

 Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we'll see how things play out."

The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality -- minus the financial penalties -- of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government -- NDP, Liberal? -- might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don't kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

To: mailto:h******* 

Subject: Re: Please vote for C-304

 Dear Sir,

I did.

The Bill passed today in the Senate and was given Royal Assent.

Thanks for your concern for free speech.

Yours,

Dennis Patterson
Senator for Nunavut

Here’s to free speech! I deeply regret my old comrade
Doug Christie did not live to see this important victory.
To: mailto:h*******
Subject: Re: Please vote for C-304
 
Dear  Sir,
I did.
The Bill passed today in the Senate and was given  Royal Assent.
Thanks for your concern for free  speech.
Yours,
Dennis Patterson Senator for  Nunavut