Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

Posted on by
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

Posted on by

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!

Posted on by
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

FREE SPEECH URGENT — E-MAIL SENATORS IMMEDIATELY, C-304 Is Now Being Debated for Third and Final Reading

Posted on by
FREE SPEECH URGENT — E-MAIL SENATORS IMMEDIATELY, C-304 Is Now Being Debated for Third and Final Reading
Yesterday, June 25, C-304, which had recently received Second Reading in the Senate, was before the Senate Human Rights Committee. Bill C-304 is crucial in regaining some measure of freedom of speech in Canada. Introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons by Alberta MP Brian Storseth last year, it was past by the House of Commons, June 8, 2012. This Bill would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship — truth is no defence, intent is no defence) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which makes criticism of privileged minorities very risky.
Censorship had some pals at the Senate’s Human Rights Committee, including Sen. Munson who subjected Mr. Storseth to some withering questioning.
However, this morning, according to the office of Sen. Robina Jaffer, Bill C-304 was “reported out of committee, without amendment.”
This is good news for freedom of speech.
The final step is now Third and final Reading. I spoke to the office of senior Ontario Senator Robert Runciman this afternoon. Bill C-304 will be debated either later today or tomorrow for Third Reading.
Those of us who have fought Internet censorship since the days of the Zundelsite case, 1996-2002, this is an exciting moment.
We need your help NOW! I don’t mean tonight or tomorrow. Bill C-304 may come up momentarily.
Please e-mail the Senate. The list is enclosed.
Please be brief and to the point.
Urge the Senators to vote for Bill C-304.
I enclose my letter on behalf of CAFE
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-56-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

 

June 26, 2013

 
Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech — Support Bill C-304 on Third Reading
Last June, the House of Commons passed a private Member’s Bill, Bill C-304 which repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
 
Sec. 13 had been a vague and much abused form of Internet censorship, making an offence out of views expressed over the Internet that were not criminal. Truth was not a defence. Intent was not a defence. The wording was  vague — communicating views “likely to expose” designated or privileged groups to “hatred or contempt.” No harm had to be proven. In fact, it was not necessary to prove that anyone other than the complainant had ever even seen the post in question. “Contempt” would capture any negative criticism. For instance, if smokers were a protected group, Internet comments stating smokers had bad breath and were damaging their skin and had higher rates of lung cancer would be “likely” to expose them to “contempt” is not hatred. Truth would not matter.
 
Until the Marc Lemire decision in 2009, Sec. 13 had a 100% conviction rate. That alone should have set off alarm bells. People are frequently charged with murder or robbery or fraud and acquitted. However, there were virtually no defences under Sec. 13. Worse, most of the prosecutions were driven by a chronic complainer with an admitted political agenda. This man worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission during some of the time he was filing complaints. He has now moved over to the Department of National Defence. He admitted in a talk to Anti-Racist Action, a Toronto group with a history of violence, that he was seeking to “shut down” through “maximum disruption” those with an ideology he opposed.
 
Most of the victims of Sec. 13 complaints were poor and obscure people, unable to afford a lawyer. On behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I acted as a “representative” for half a dozen of these people. I saw lives and reputations ruined. The long drawn-out proceedings were an abuse BY process.
 
The investigators and prosecutors for the Canadian Human Rights Commission acted more like a political police than officials steeped in our tradition of fairness. When the lead “hate” investigator was questioned during the Warman v. Marc Lemire Tribunal, he was asked what weight he gave to freedom of expression when he was examining a website: “None,” he responded, “freedom of expression is an American idea.” Oh, really?
  
There is an urgency here. Canadians continue to suffer. Terry Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, was charged under Sec. 13 and found guilty. He was then charged for much of the same material under Sec. 319 (“hate law”) of the Criminal Code. Last fall, a Regina judge dismissed the case. However, Mr. Tremaine had been hit with a lifetime “cease and desist” order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal forbidding him from posting the same or similar comments to the ones at issue at the Tribunal. But what is “similar”? Although he tried to tone down his language, he was eventually found guilty of “contempt of court” for not removing the original posts, although the Tribunal’s order, as worded, had not required this. Subject to an appeal, he may soon head off to jail for up to six months!
 
Jail for expressing non-violent opinions on a website in another country? Such repression and micro-managing of opinion are unacceptable in a free society.
 
The Canadian press and many MPs rightly criticize restrictions on free speech in other countries. The case of Chinese architect, artist and dissident Wei Wei comes to mind. He was jailed briefly and then stripped of his political rights — not allowed to talk to the foreign media — for a year. Many Canadians rightly voiced their concern. Yet, Sec. 13 puts its victims under a lifetime gag!
 
In passing Bill C-304, the House of Commons went a long way to securing Internet freedom in Canada.  We urge you to do likewise, do the right thing and vote “aye” to give Third Reading to Bill C-304. 
Respectfully submitted.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
E-MAILS OF CANADIAN SENATORS
andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca,  harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca,  maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca, andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca, harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca, maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca,

Update in Topham “Hate” Case: Crown Refuses to Particularize Charges Against B.C. Writer

Posted on by

 

Update in Topham “Hate” Case: Crown Refuses to Particularize Charges Against B.C. Writer
 

Dear Reader,
Here is the latest report on my case with Canada’s censorship commissars (B’nai Brith Canada) and the Canadian court system. Please try to pass it along to all concerned with the issue of Freedom of Speech in Canada.
Also, as a special bonus treat for Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the leader of BC’s “Hate Crime Team”, I’m enclosing here a political cartoon featuring Terry’s mugshot and mindset, a grim reminder of where our national police force’s heads are at these days. Please feel free to pass that along to your sources on the net. I know that Terry just loves to have his picture in the media. 🙂
Sincerely
Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
_____________________________________

Screen Shot 2012-12-14 at 11.52.30 AM.png
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #13
Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,
Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, saw the return to the Quesnel provincial court house of myself and my dear and lovely wife for yet another appearance on the charge of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ as written in Canada’s criminal code sec. 319(2).
At this stage of the proceedings it has become virtually impossible to know what to expect beforehand when attending them. The last time I went on May 16th I was greeted with a completely new strategy by the Crown when they informed the court they had decided to go for a “direct indictment” rather than have the case unfold in a normal manner by allowing me to present evidence at a “preliminary inquiry” in order to determine whether or not the Crown actually had sufficient and viable evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial. 
Crown told the court that they were awaiting a decision by the B.C. Attorney General’s office that would confirm this and that they expected it would happen prior to May 28th. 
Well, as we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men, that decision by the AG’s office didn’t manifest and so the Crown told Judge Morgan that they would have to postpone that part of the proceedings until a later date at which time they fully expected that the Attorney General’s office would make up its mind one way or another.
Judge Morgan, the Honourable Judge who has been attending to my case from the beginning and who was absent on the previous court appearance, looked over the documents that were awaiting him when he entered the court room in order to get the drift of what had taken place on May 16th. He noted that I had filed an application for particularization of the Crown’s disclosure material and in perusing the document he read out excerpts to the court wherein it was stated that because of the volume of materials (over 1000 pages) presented that it was virtually impossible for me to address what specific posts on my website the Crown deemed to be “hatred”.  After doing so he addressed the Crown prosecutor, Jennifer Johnston, and asked her what she had to say about it.
The Crown’s response was rather vociferous and protracted, the main thrust of the argument being that the Crown was not legally bound in any way, shape or form, to divulge to the defendant the specifics of what posts they intended to argue were the ones they felt might prove to a court of law that I was guilty of the said offence. In the words of Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston, ” There is no case law anywhere” that says they are bound to do so. 
Crown then further worded its argument to the effect that by doing so they would be giving away to the defendant their strategies and in saying that CC Johnston then proceeded to hand to the Judge a number of photocopied pages taken off my website that referred to an online book written by Elizabeth Dilling titled, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The document that Judge Morgan was presented with first was the Forward to Dilling’s book giving an overview of her various works and her experience in dealing with the negative influences that had come to bear upon America during the course of World War II and afterwards by Zionism. 
Judge Morgan quickly scanned the page and then, giving Crown counsel Johnston a rather quizzical look, asked her if this was the sort of thing that Crown was planning to present to the court as evidence?
CC Johnston then launched into a somewhat convoluted and forceful explanation bordering upon become a diatribe. She told the Judge that the article in question was an example of how the defendant’s website was presenting the writer as a credentialed and erudite researcher and writer when it fact she was really just another anti-Semitic hate monger (this was not stated but implied in her comments) using the excuse of communism to spread lies about the Jewish Talmud and that the Forward to her book might be compared to a sexual predator who, by sending out an email to someone online telling them about a wholesome family camping trip and inviting them to attend, by stealth and deception lures the innocent (and presumed) youth into meeting them so they can then violate them sexually!!!
It’s at times such as these that keeping a calm, straight face in the court room becomes extremely challenging. 
After her presentation Judge Morgan then stated that he could sympathize with the fact that there was such an abundance of disclosure and that I might well be overwhelmed by it. He said that he was unable to give me any legal advice but that he felt that I should consider bringing this matter up in my Rowbotham application as an illustration of why I felt it was vitally necessary to have counsel to represent me in the event of a trial.
With respect to the Rowbotham application the Judge asked me whether I had filed it and I told him that I had sent off the proper papers to the government but that I was awaiting further word as to whether or not Crown would get their “direct indictment” decision which was to have happened today. Earlier the Crown had informed the Judge of the letter which I had been sent from the legal department for the AG’s office instructing me to either file a Rowbotham application for a counsel to represent me at a preliminary enquiry or to wait and file an application in the event of a trial. I told Judge Morgan that I had gone no further with the application pending today’s appearance because I didn’t know which way the Crown was going with the case. He appeared to have no problem understanding what I was saying. 
Judge Morgan then decided that it was not the time make any decisions regarding any of the matters that came up and that he would, once again, have to postpone the case to a later date when Crown felt that they would know for certain whether a direct indictment was happening or not. Crown concurred with him and suggested that they might know better by the end of June or the early part of July, 2013. At that point the Judge instructed me to go to the office next to the court room after adjournment and I would be given the exact date when I was to return.
Following his instructions to me I asked the Judge if I might speak. He gave his permission and I then told him that I wished to register a strong objection to the manner in which Crown was continually making reference to Radical Press and comparing the website to either cases of child pornography or else, as in today’s arguments, cases of sexual abuse. I told the Judge that I felt this was highly unfair and prejudicial and that there was no comparison to what I publish and what the Crown was attempting always equate with those two references. The Judge then said that my objection was registered and following that the case was adjourned to Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm.
—-
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
 

ARREST STATEMENT OF ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM REGARDING HIS ARREST AND INCARCERATION BY THE RCMP

Posted on by

ARREST STATEMENT OF ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM REGARDING HIS ARREST AND INCARCERATION BY THE RCMP ON  WEDNESDAY, MAY 16TH, 2012 IN QUESNEL, B.C.  ON THE CHARGE OF:

“Willful Promotion of Hatred CC 319(2)”

Posted May 16th, 2013 on 1st Anniversary of this Event

By

Arthur Topham

[Editor’s Note: In the interests of freedom of speech and freedom of the Internet I am posting my “Arrest Statement” which my former lawyer Mr. Douglas Christie advised me to write soon after my arrest on May 16th, 2012. His wise counsel was that this case would likely drag on in the courts for years and by the time it came to trial (should such an event arise) that many of the details of my recollection of that fateful day would by then be hazy and doubtful. Acting on Mr. Christie’s advice I wrote out a detailed description of what took place that May morning last year. It’s an interesting picture of what can happen to you here in Canada should the Jewish lobby decide they don’t like being criticized. Read. Heed. And please pass it on to your friends and associates. ~Arthur Topham]

On Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 I started out my work day travelling out to my mining property on the 2400 Rd off the Barkerville Hwy to meet up with the Petro Canada fuel truck at 9:30 a.m. I was having the company fuel truck filled with 1200 gallons of diesel fuel for use during the upcoming placer mining operations for this season. When that was completed I returned home to my residence at 4633 Barkerville Hwy and prepared for a trip up to Prince George where I had to go to the Richie  Bros. Auctioneers site to pick up some mining equipment that my business associate had recently purchased at an auction on May 10th. My business partner and wife, Shastah Topham, came along with me and we left our home at approximately 11:00 a.m. heading west toward Quesnel.

Plans had also been made ahead of time to meet another mining associate at Princess Auto in Prince George at 1 p.m. and between the two of us we would haul equipment back to my placer claims on the 2400 Road.

Due to the fact that the Petro Canada fuel truck was a bit late in arriving at the site plus the additional time necessary to fuel the 1200 gallon truck I was running behind schedule by about half an hour.

We were travelling in a 2009 Chev pickup owned by my mining associate with whom I am presently in a Joint Venture Agreement.

When one leaves my property at 4633 Barkerville Hwy you must turn right on to the Barkerville Hwy in order to travel toward Quesnel and Hwy 97 the route necessary to travel in order to get to Prince George. The section of Hwy 26 (Barkerville Hwy) that runs past my residence stretches in a straight line for approximately 1 km. As soon as I pulled out on to the road I immediately saw that there was a white pickup truck sitting adjacent to the eastbound lane of highway just before the road descended down a small dip and passes Cottonwood Historic Site.

As we drove toward it I remarked to my wife, “There’s the cops sitting there. Looks like they’re either waiting to catch Willie again or maybe they’re doing surveillance on Don Carter’s property. Don Carter has been experiencing ongoing harassment by the Canadian Revenue Agency over the past few years and has also had numerous encounters with the RCMP in conjunction with the CRA.

As we approached the white pickup we could see two men in dark clothing sitting in it trying to look as unobtrusive as possible. Again I said to my wife, “If we weren’t running so damn late I’d stop and asked them if they were lost or needed any assistance.”

As we crested the dip and passed Cottonwood Historic Site I noted that within a minute or so the white pickup was now following us. I asked my wife is she was buckled up (she was) and then I set my vehicle on cruise control at about 95 cpm. The limit was 90 kph so I knew that at least if the cops were going to stop me they wouldn’t have the excuse that I was speeding.

As we proceeded on toward Quesnel Shastah was spoon-feeding me my breakfast as I drove because we were too late for me to sit down at home and eat before leaving. I remarked to my wife that the cops were likely watching us through their binoculars and wondering what she was doing. We also were discussing the vehicle that was now so obviously tailing us. It’s always a joke for the locals around Cottonwood when the police come and try to set up either a surveillance vehicle or radar to catch unwary speeders. The cops never seem to understand that when you live in a very small, tight-knit community that everyone in the area is very aware of who drives what type of vehicle and when they see a vehicle parked on the side of the highway with people sitting in it they know right away that they’re either broke down or else cops.

We continued along the highway talking about cops and related issues until we reached the top of 11 Mile Hill. When one begins to descend you are overlooking the Fraser Valley viewshed and can see westward for over a hundred kilometres. About half way down I noted that a regular white coloured RCMP van with the usual bells and whistles was now directly behind the white pickup. At the same time, due to the steep grade of the hill, I was also watching my own speedometer to make sure I didn’t begin coasting beyond the 100 km speed limit. As we neared the bottom of the hill the RCMP van’s lights came on. I told Shastah and proceeded to slow down and pull over on the right hand side of the highway just where the road levelled off.

I asked my wife to open the glove box and get the vehicle insurance out. At the same time I reached for my wallet in order to get my driver’s license ready to show the police.

By the time we did these two tasks more police vehicles arrived and there were suddenly four or more of them along the side of the highway. I rolled down my window and in the rear view mirror could see three or more officers approaching the rear of the truck. One of them called out to me by name saying “Mr. Topham, would you get out of the vehicle and come to the rear of the vehicle.” Knowing that I was driving my business partner’s 2009 Chev Silverado and wasn’t registered to me, I knew immediately that these officers were not not just stopping me on a whim or that they didn’t know who they had been following. I called out of my window, “Do you want to see my driver’s license. One officer, who I realized later was the leader of the pack (Terry Wilson), repeated his command that I get out of the vehicle and again I asked him if I should bring my license to which he answered in the affirmative.

Leaving Shastah inside I got out and walked to the rear of the truck. I was immediately approached by an officer who I assumed was in charge. He introduced himself as Terry Wilson and then told me that I was being placed under arrest. Immediately following that another young male officer came up to me on my left carrying a clipboard in hand and told me that he was going to read me the charge and then proceeded to state, “there are reasonable grounds for believing that the following offences have been committed: “Wilful Promotion of Hatred contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

He then asked me if I heard and understood what the charges were and in the same breath also said that I had the right to remain silent and that anything I said could and would be used against me. I told him and the rest of the cops standing around that they had no right to be charging me with said crime and their alleged “hate” crime was nothing but more bogus charges likely brought on by Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith Canada and that this whole charade was nothing more that an extension of the Section 13 complaint charge that Abrams had filed against me back in 2007. Meanwhile Wilson and his crew were all standing by with their trusty little digital voice recorders going.

After my little rant I acknowledged that I understood the charges even though I disagreed with them and the Terry Wilson proceeded to tell me to turn around and place my hands on the back of the truck so that he could handcuff and frisk me. When I turned around I noted that other officers, including a female one, had gone to and were talking with my wife Shastah on the passenger side of the vehicle.

When I realized that they were going to haul me off to jail I told Wilson that I would like to leave my personal effects that I had on me with my wife before he handcuffed me and he said that would be okay. I emptied my pockets of cash, keys, a memory stick that had on it a jpg of a Cariboo Placers Mining and Exploration Co business card that I had recently designed and was planning on taking to the printer in Quesnel. Wilson immediately grabbed it and asked what I had on it. I told him but I could sense that he already had it in his mind that possibly he had in his possession some incriminating evidence to back up the phoney charges and he held on to it. I also removed a small Swiss Army pen knife, diamond grit knife sharpener, lighter and then my regular Swiss Army knife which I was carrying in a leather case on my belt. I also removed my wrist watch and laid all of these articles on the retractable cover that was over the box of the truck.

After placing all of my personal effects on the deck cover I put my arms behind my back while Wilson did his thing and placed some plastic cuffs on me. All the while his manner and that of the other arresting officers was civil and congenial and ‘friendly’ to the point of being extreme. They addressed me as “Mr. Topham” and then asked me if I preferred to be addressed as either “Mr. Topham” or “Arthur.” I told them that Arthur was fine.

After Wilson fastened the handcuffs on me I asked him if I could go around the truck and speak to my wife before they took me away. He said that would be okay and then when I went to move another officer came up and held my arm when I began to walk saying that I should be careful not to fall down. I had to laugh to myself at their overly feigned concern for my physical welfare given that I normally am out either in the bush or on my mining claims where I’m climbing over logs or boulders. When I approached Shastah I told her that they had arrested me and were going to take me into town to jail and that she should come to the back of the truck and get my personal belongings. At this point my wife had a look of incredulity on her face and looked at the officers standing around her and said something to the effect, “Are you guys serious? You’re going to arrest my husband?” She was obviously becoming quite distraught. I told her that she would have to drive the truck when they took me away. She was unfamiliar with it as we had just acquired it as part of the business venture that we were in. She got out of the vehicle and came around to the rear where I had placed my personal effects and began putting them in a plastic bag. I then asked her to give me a kiss good bye as I had no idea of how long we might be separated from each other.

Wilson then told me that he would be taking me in to the Quesnel RCMP station and then two young officers held me and steered me toward a smaller, unmarked police vehicle. As we walked along the shoulder of the highway the female cop on my left introduced herself to me saying that her name was Normandie Levas and jokingly remarked that she was the better looking of the lot and that she would assist me in getting into the vehicle with the handcuffs so I didn’t have any trouble. They placed me in the back seat on the passenger side and then the two of them got in and proceeded to drive toward Quesnel with Normandie Levas driving. The female cop placed her digital voice recorder on the divider between the two seats and repeated to me that I was being recorded and then proceeded to elicit conversation from me. Having already told me first off that she was the better looking, attractive cop I jokingly commented to her that little good would it do me as there was no way I could even grope her with my hands behind my back.

It was about a 15 minute drive to the Quesnel police station and as we drove along the two cops got into talking about one thing or another. Again, Normandie Levas asked me if I preferred to be called “Arthur” or “Mr. Topham” and I told her the story about how I had been a school teacher for a number of years and that I had grown tired of hearing “Mr. Topham” “Mr. Topham” all the time from the children that I taught. She asked me what grades I had worked with and I told her that I mainly worked in the elementary level although I had later subbed in the high schools in Quesnel. I also described to her how I had started out my teaching career working in the federal Indian Day School system and from there moved to Wells, B.C. back in 1975 and had since lived in the area for the greater portion of the last forty years.

At one point while we were travelling down the highway I noted that Normandie was speeding well beyond the limit which was max. 90 km and I told her and she slowed down. The conversation turned to gold mining and I asked them if they were aware of the tv series called Gold Rush Alaska and they intimated that they were. I then proceeded to tell them about a local placer miner who was doing very well and was planning to start a made in BC version of a tv series similar to Gold Rush Alaska and that I’d just watched a trailer for it. The BC version was called “Gold Diggers.” I jokingly told them that maybe I could get them parts in the new upcoming drama and the male cop said that he had always wanted to be a movie star. I laughed and said that he would be better off being an honest cop rather than getting involved with Hollywood as it was run by the Jews and he’d eventually have to sell his soul to the Devil if he got caught up in it. Neither of the two cops reacted outwardly to my remark but I was certain they were thinking that they had got a juicy bit of racist hate mongering against the Jews regardless of the fact that what I had said was the truth.

When we arrived at the station and Normandie pulled in to the parking lot at the rear where all the cop cars were parked I asked her if they were going to put a hood over my head so that the local folks wouldn’t see them marching me into jail with handcuffs on. I was of course being facetious but she then turned around the car and proceeded to drive it into the building itself where a door was opened and we entered in. The two cops got out and Normandie then proceeded to remove her gun from her side and placed it in a  box outside the door leading into the station. When she did so I noted that a digital clock on the box read: 12:12 p.m.

I was then escorted into the station and led to the booking desk where I saw Terry Wilson standing in the hallway waiting for me. A young cop inside the office came up with a form in his hand to fill out and for me to sign regarding my personal effects and as he approached me asked me how I was. I thought to myself, “Do they really expect you to give them an honest answer given the circumstances?” and then remarked something to that effect. Terry Wilson then proceeded to ask me some questions about whether or not my home was locked or was wired with any explosive devices or if I had any firearms? I told him, facetiously, to watch out for the “grow op” and that yes, I did have firearms in my home and that two of them were loaded (a Marlin 22 and a Winchester 30-30) and in my bedroom and he should be careful. I also told him that I had two other unloaded rifles upstairs, a 22 calibre and a 30-30 Winchester.

It was at this point that he told me he was going to frisk me again before putting me in a cell and that I should remove me belt and my suspenders and my shoes. I said yes, I guess I’d better remove my suspenders so I couldn’t hang myself while in jail by “suspending” myself from the ceiling!

I then signed the form for my belongings and we proceeded to the jail cell with me walking in my stockinged feet. Wilson said that it would likely be two or three hours before I heard from him and also asked me if I had a lawyer that wished to call. When I mentioned Douglas Christie Wilson said that he knew Doug and would call him. He acted as if he and Doug were old high school buddies but then I thought to myself that yes, being in the “hate” business I’m sure that he would be aware of Mr.  Christie. It was about 12:20 p.m. when I was placed in a cell and the door locked. Wilson said he’d come and get me if he could get in contact with Mr. Christie.

Not too long afterwards Wilson came and opened the door and asked me to go down the hall to a small room where there was a seat and a phone hanging on the wall. He said he had got a hold of Mr. Christie and that when Doug called that a staff person in the office would re-direct the call to the phone in the room and that I would then be able to speak to Mr. Christie in confidence. I just smiled at Wilson when he said this knowing how the system works. I waited in the room and then the call finally came through and I spoke to Doug Christie. He advised me not to tell the police any more that I had to and that he would monitor the situation. I briefly explained what took place and then let the cops know I was done and they escorted me back to the jail cell.

I remained incarcerated throughout the afternoon and into the evening. One one occasion Wilson came again to the cell and got me to go and speak with Mr. Christie who had told me that he would be concerned if I was still being held after a few hours and not released. I didn’t realize at the time that Wilson was telling me it would be just a couple of more hours that the search warrant was for 1700 hours to 2100 hours and that I wouldn’t be released until after they had completed their search of my home.

Around 5 or 6 p.m. someone came by and opened a slot in the door and placed a tray on it with what appeared to be food and drink. They then hit the door with what sounded like a dog chain and left. No voice to say a meal was there. I stared at the tray and thought to myself that there was no way in hell I would accept food under these circumstances. I began to reflect that just a day or so before I was reading about a massive hunger strike that has been going on in Israel where thousands of Palestinians were being held in jail for upwards of years without having been charged with anything. There had been a world-wide call for solidarity with the hunger strikers, their conditions being extremely worse than mine, and so I said to myself that I would fast in solidarity with these political prisoners of the apartheid, Jews-only state of Israel rather than eat upon command. About a half an hour later another shadowy figure walked past the door and hit it again with the chain presumably to remind me that there was food on the tray. No human voice just the sound of metal on metal.

Later on when Wilson returned he asked me why I hadn’t eaten any of the food and I told him about the Palestinians and how I was fasting with them in solidarity. I doubt whether he knew what I was talking about and he said that if there was something else I might like to eat that he would try and get it for me. I hadn’t looked at what was on the plate so I didn’t know what it was. The styrofoam cup likely had coffee or juice in it.

Eventually around 10 p.m or later Wilson finally arrived and I was let out of the cell. He told me that he would be taking me upstairs to an office where my personal belongings would be returned and where we would be having a discussion regarding the charges that would be, of course, digitally recorded. At no point in our conversation did Wilson indicate that our conversations were being video taped. As I was emerging from the cell I looked Wilson in the eyes and asked him just what the charges were. He said that I was being charged for publishing “hatred toward the Jewish population.”

He also told me that even though I was now out of the cell that I was still considered to be under arrest. I proceeded barefoot upstairs to a small office and sat down. Wilson then laid his digital voice recorder on the desk and left the room for about three to five minutes without telling me where he was going. When he returned he gave me copies of the Search Warrant, the Undertaking Given to a Peace Officer or an Officer In Charge which contained the alleged offence of “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code occurring in “Quesnel, BC” from April 28, 2011 to May 14, 2012 plus a “PROMISE TO APPEAR” document. I informed Wilson at that point that my council had instructed me not to sign any documents and he was fine with that.

Wilson then began his attempt to initiate conversation with me. I had been instructed by my counsel not to engage in any discussions but I failed in that regard when Wilson began talking about how he had been reading the materials on my website RadicalPress.com over the course of the past year and longer and that he had concluded, based upon particular articles,that it was indeed a “hate” site. I countered his remark by stating to Wilson that possibly in his mind he felt it was a “hate” site but that was pure speculation on his part for the alleged complaint by Harry Abrams and Richard Warman was far from substantiated nor was it determined yet by a court of law at this point. He then went on to compliment me on my writing abilities saying that I was a very good writer but immediately launched into the same old standard arguments used by the Jewish Zionists making mention of the fact that I had on my website articles by Eustice Mullins plus the  Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Surely, he remarked, I must know that that small booklet was just a work of fiction designed to implicate the Jews in crimes for which they were innocent. I replied that whether the work was fictitious or not it now stands as a roadmap of the 20th Century clearly delineating the proposed agenda for the Zionists and that the record of events shown throughout that period were solid evidence that the booklet was a preconceived agenda for global hegemony on the part of the Rothschild/Zionist Internationalists. I told Wilson that anyone who had seriously studied 20 century world history (and here I made a point of stressing that I was referring to history written by those who were not pushing the Zionist version of history as it is found in the mainstream media) could easily see that the all the major pieces of the puzzle fell into place in terms of understanding how the Protocols, in fact, outline what the Zionist Jews planned to do in order to gain absolute control over the media, the economy, the judicial system and the political and social structures that comprise the framework upon which the world’s democratic system is based. I could see that Wilson was struggling with the notion of differing versions of history as opposed to just one.

Wilson then brought up the subject of an article which I had posted on my site titled, Israel Must Perish!  He began to tell me how it was an extremely hateful piece of writing and that he wondered why I had written and published such a hate-filled book. I had to laugh aloud (and I did). At the same moment I also thought to myself, “This person is supposed to be the head honcho in charge of determining what is and isn’t to be determined “hate” literature and he doesn’t have a clue what is going on here.” When he said, in a matter of fact tone that I had gone to the trouble of actually publishing this book and posting it on my website I told him that he had the whole thing wrong. I had NOT written such a book. The truth of the matter was that all the vile, hateful statements contained in the supposed book which he thought I had written were, IN FACT, verbatim, direct quotations from a real, actual book written by a Zionist Jew by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman and published in the United States of America back in 1941. The original book was called GERMANY MUST PERISH! and I had taken this booklet and written a parody of it in order to enlighten the public as to who the real perpetrators of supposed “hate literature” were. I don’t think that Wilson understood what a “parody” was and I could also see that he was having trouble understanding what I was explaining to him. I had the distinct impression that he was not happy with the fact that the one article which he apparently felt was conclusive proof that I was publishing “hatred toward the Jewish population” was, in fact, merely a poignant example of their own style of writing being turned upon itself in the form of an imitation in order to highlight their utter malfeasance when it came to denigrating the German people. It was also quite evident to me that the choices of articles which Wilson had used in his interrogation had been supplied to him by Abrams and Warman as absolute examples of “hatred”.

Wilson kept on going on about other materials but I was done with any further discussion and told him so. He then asked me how my experience in jail was and whether or not I was satisfied that I had been treated well. I said that I felt I was generally treated in a respectful manner with one exception. Oh, he said, and what was that? I then point-blank asked him whether or not he wiped his ass after taking a shit. He looked a bit taken aback but replied that he did. Why then did he put me in a cell for close to twelve hours without providing me with the basic necessity of toilet paper so that in the event I had a bowel movement that I could at least wipe myself? Did he expect me to take a crap on camera and then attempt to wash my ass in the little stainless steel sink that was provided and afterwards use my T-shirt to dry my hands? His response was that I could have called out to a guard or the jail keeper down the hall if I was in need of having a crap and that they would then provide me with the necessary accoutrement for the job. I told him that he should have informed me of this process prior to locking me up and leaving me without the bare essentials to attend to any toileting that might arise. Wilson had no further comments to make and then an attendant arrived with my personal belongings and after putting my belt back on Wilson walked with me down to the front entrance of the police station where he let me out the front door. There waiting for me was my dear, distraught wife Shastah.

 

 

SE 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

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. “