Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17
January 27th, 2014
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
Due to the nature of this particular Legal Update, i.e., it being recent events connected to my Preliminary Inquiry, the necessity arose for editorial commentary throughout the report wherever I felt it was warranted. It also meant that it would be a rather long article as well. The need to present a general overview of my case now that it’s finally reached this stage is the reason for its inordinate length.
January 22nd, 2014 marked the 616th day since my arrest on May 16th, 2012 for the alleged crime of “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, [that] willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” The actual section of the Criminal Code of Canada reads:
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
In the Legal Rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under “Proceedings in criminal and penal matters”, 11(b) it states:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
According to the stated legal rights of all Canadian citizens (as denoted in the above Section 11(b) of the Charter), one must assume that a wait of 616 days or 20 months plus should be construed as being a “reasonable time” in which to expect one’s case to be heard in a Canadian court of law. But of course 616 days is only the beginning of the arduous process of seeking justice within the Canadian court system. January 22nd, 2014 was not the day when my trial on these specious charges was set to commence; it was but the date set for the Preliminary Inquiry which is basically an opportunity afforded the accused wherein they are given an opportunity to dispute the actual evidence which precipitated the laying of charges based on the Crown’s allegations.
I will get to the actual proceedings but first I’d like to say a few words about this section of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) which is placed under the heading “Hate Propaganda” and exists as Sections 318(1) through to Section 320.1(1) of the Code itself. This vile, undemocratic section of the Criminal Code was inserted into law by Zionist forces operating within the Cohen Commission back in 1970 and remains the one critical section of Canada’s criminal code where the pro-Zionist elements within Canada are now focusing their combined effort in a last ditch, desperate legal campaign designed to censor and silence Canada’s Internet and prevent Freedom of Speech from occurring without fear of legal reprisals.
Until Canada is free of all this Zionist created “HATE” legislation we will never be able to say that we’re a democratic nation that values the one fundamental God-given right that must remain sacrosanct in order to retain all of our other inherent rights, that being the right to free and unfettered expression. All of it must be eliminated so that a level playing field will exist for every Canadian.
The Preliminary Inquiry – Day One
Back in November of 2013 the date, January 22nd, 2014, was set for a full day to hold a preliminary inquiry into my Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” case involving the two complainants – B’nai Brith Canada (represented by Harry Abrams) and Richard Warman, a lawyer involved in numerous former Sec. 13 cases prior to the law’s repeal in June of 2012. My former lawyer, Doug Christie, had requested that at least one week of time be set aside for the preliminary inquiry in order to challenge all the specious evidence that Crown had used in order to gain its search warrant then used to invade my residence and steal all my computers and electronic files plus other hard copy materials which weren’t covered in the warrant. Crown at that time agreed to four days.
After the passing of Mr. Christie in March of 2013 Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston changed that time period to one day, telling the judge that in her estimation a single day was all the time necessary for Crown to – as Crown and Judge Morgan have been wont to say repeatedly, – “pass the Shepherd test” and move the case on to the trial stage. The “Shephard Test“, for those not versed in court legalese involved an extradition case back in the 1970′s out of which emerged a number of test arguments as to the degree of evidence required in order for a judge to determine whether or not to move the case forward.
Being self-represented and unaware of the machinations of Crown I ended up with one day in order to address all the issues including the sworn information of Cst. Normandie Levas provided to a Justice of the Peace in order to have the search warrant approved; information that contained numerous allegations which appeared to have been written by a Zionist script writer rather than by someone who was at the time relatively new to the controversial BC HATE CRIME TEAM and not versed in the whole array of research necessary to make expert commentary on issues dealing with what may or may not be alleged to be “hate” literature. All these allegations initially sworn in the Information regarding postings on the RadicalPress.com website were basically the same evidence that Crown was now introducing at the preliminary inquiry in order to convince Judge Morgan that there was sufficient evidence to commit my case to trial.
Initially Crown was planning to call a number of witnesses for the preliminary inquiry, the bulk of them being RCMP officers involved in the surveillance and later plunder of my home and theft of my computers and electronic files and firearms. The others were Barry Salt an expert in the field of forensic examination of computers and data and, of course, Det.Cst. Terry Wilson, the Lead Investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM located in Surrey, B.C. I had made application to the court to have the judge order Crown to subpoena the other crucial witnesses – the two complainants who had filed the vexatious complaints in the first place and Cst. Normandie Levas, the second member of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who, as the Affiant swearing the Information, was responsible for the act that led to the granting of thel search warrant used to enter my home and steal all of my computer equipment and firearms. Judge Morgan did eventually direct Crown to have Cst. Levas appear but as she was on “holidays” at the time of the scheduled inquiry a later date of March 13th, 2014 was set for cross-examination.
During an earlier focus hearing on January 3rd, 2014 Judge Morgan mediated some concessions between Crown and myself, which I agreed to, regarding some of the witnesses being called in order to prove where I lived and what firearms I had in my possessions and so on; items that would cut down the time which would otherwise have been wasted giving evidence for incidental aspects of the case that I wasn’t intending to challenge. As a concession to this Crown agreed to reconsider the second firearms count involving unsafe storage.At the time, I informed Judge Morgan that I recently had taken the PAL firearms safety course and received 100% of the written test and 90% on the practical test and was now in the process of sending my application off. I also informed Judge Morgan that I was planning to purchase a certified gun storage locker in which to store my firearms properly. Crown then stated that if these preconditions were achieved that they would consider staying the firearms charge.
What was scheduled to be a one day inquiry, like all great plans of mice and men, turned out to be a horse of another colour. I had made arrangements with my two witnesses, Mr. Frank Frost and Mr. Lonnie Landrud, to be at the courthouse at 9:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, January 22nd. When my wife and I arrived around 9:15 a.m. it was evident that my case was not going to be the only one scheduled for the morning. Now this is not an uncommon occurrence in the Quesnel Courthouse (or in many other smaller communities throughout B.C.) and it all stems from government ineptitude (or design?) that there are never enough judges and prosecutors and courtrooms available to handle the volume of cases awaiting address. Nonetheless, I did expect that for a formal preliminary inquiry time would have been arranged so that it could occur without needless interruption.
After approximately twenty minutes of lawyers and Crown attempting to reschedule times, etc. my case began and Crown called their first witness, Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, lead investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM. Det. Wilson informed the court as to his name and position within the RCMP and when Crown asked him about his involvement with RadicalPress.com he told the court that he been monitoring the RadicalPress.com website since April 28th, 2011. It was on that date he first received an email from Richard Warman who registered a Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against the site. I thought it was rather amusing given that it was right around the time of the last federal election (May 2nd, 2011) and I had just posted a long article on Harper only the day before on April 27th which I had titled “Hating Harper“. It’s possible that Warman didn’t appreciate the graphic header for the piece in question that caused him to lay the charge or it may have been my advice at the time to the Canadian electorate warning them of dire days ahead should Canadians hand Stephen Harper a mandate to govern the nation. Whatever it was, given the current controversy over Harper and his entourage of Zionist sycophant ministers and pro-Israeli band of Chabad Lubavicher controllers traveling at great taxpayer expense to the state of Israel and soiling Canada’s image as a sovereign nation with their unabashed grovelling and overt support for this criminal state, it was rather apropos that Warman would suddenly file a complaint against RadicalPress.com at that particular point in time.
Det. Wilson then went on to describe to the court how his unit has been investigating the website since that time (a period of approximately 32 months thus far) and in the process confirming to the judge that the articles and online books and links, etc. were available to the general public and that anybody could just go there and click on a link and read whatever they wanted without having to enter any passwords or penetrate any firewalls. I thought to myself as he was going on, “My goodness, an acknowledged alternative news site and all you have to do is click on the url to it and the home page or whatever document hyperlink you may have clicked on in the sidebar or the menu bar above just suddenly appears and you can actually view it and read it! What a genius that Arthur Topham must be!”
Det. Wilson also told the court that the website has been running and posting new materials on a regular basis ever since the original conditions of my bail were changed with the exception of a few days in November of 2012 when the site was transferred to a new host server.
It was at this point that Det. Wilson then set up his laptop and introduced the courtroom to a special computer software program that allowed him to show the judge, myself and Crown what appeared to be interactive video footage of my website that they had copied to the program. We all had our own individual monitor screens and sat there while Det. Wilson took us on a virtual journey around the RadicalPress.com home page explaining to the judge and Crown how the site operates. Given the fact that it operates as any normal WordPress program would it was like sitting through an introductory lesson on basic computer skills that one might offer a Grade 2 or 3 class of children. This went on for some time and we all observed with great interest as Det. Wilson clicked on a hyperlink in the Pages section on the side bar and lo and behold the article or book would suddenly appear right there on the screen! All of this was, ostensibly, being done to show that any person in Canada could easily access all the “hate” and “anti-Semitism” and “racism” toward the Jewish population that the Crown alleges is present on the RadicalPress.com website.
Having endured this little media sideshow the judge then called for a break at 10:15 a.m. after which court resumed and other cases once again intruded into the schedule. My inquiry ceased at that point. The lunch hour eventually came and when court reconvened at 1:30 p.m.for the afternoon session more cases consumed the time. It wasn’t until around 3:45 p.m. that the preliminary inquiry resumed. It was at this stage that Crown finally got down to the meat and potatoes of its argument. Det. Wilson was presented with a massive black binder that eventually was entered as Exhibit A in the proceedings. I had been given the same binder a couple of days prior to the inquiry as well and had time to peruse its contents beforehand so it wasn’t a surprise to me. What it contained was hard copy pages of four online books that are present on RadicalPress.com plus two articles of my own that were also on the site. Each was given a tab number and they appeared in the following order:
Tab 1: Germany Must Perish
Tab 2: Israel Must Perish
Tab 3: Protocols of Zion
Tab 4: The Biological [sic]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion
Tab 6: Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew by Arthur Topham
Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston then proceeded to ask Det. Wilson questions regarding the 6 items posted on RadicalPress.com.
With respect to Tab 1 which was the online version of Theodore N. Kaufman’s book Germany Must Perish! Wilson went on to describe the book and what it was about. He gave a reasonable outline of its aim and purpose which was to spread anti-German propaganda against the National Socialist government of Germany and the German nation.
When it came to Tab 2 Wilson presented his views in a somewhat modified form than his original statements wherein he was very emphatic about the fact that I had actually written a “real” book bearing the title, Israel Must Perish! Now he was admitting that it was a reproduction of segments of Kaufmann’s book and that I had only changed certain words like “Germany” and “German” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Netanyahu” and the rest of the text was actually Kaufman’s. Crown then asked Wilson if he had read the Preface to this “book” which was written my myself. Wilson responded in the affirmative and said that he had read it. At no time though did he broach the issue of my assertion (contained in the Preface) that it was actually a satirical article based on Kaufman’s original hard copy book.
Tab 3 was, of course, the infamous book that the Jews have been attempting to erase from the screen of world history ever since it first appeared back at the turn of the 20th century. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has been attacked as an “anti-Semitic” book from day one and as the writer/journalist Douglas Reed, author of the classic study of Zionism, The Controversy of Zion, wrote, more money has been spent on trying to prove this particular book to be a fraud than any other book in history. And for good reason.
Again, Det. Wilson’s assessment of the book was that it was a fraudulent attempt to promote anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish population and added that those who promote it see the book as a “roadmap” of the Zionist Jews’ attempt to “take over the world” and create a Jewish one world government. Crown asked Det. Wilson whether the book existed on other websites as well and he confirmed that it could be found on many websites besides RadicalPress.com.
Tab 4 was the online version of a book written by Eustice Mullins called The Biological Jew. Wilson then went on to describe the book as an anti-Semitic book that describes the Jews as “societal parasites”. It was also admitted that this book could also be found on other websites as well as on RadicalPress.com.
Tab 5 referred to the book titled, The Jewish Religion: It’s Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling. Crown asked Det. Wilson to describe the book and he testified that it was in his estimation “anti-Semitic” and then went on to describe how bad it was and how the author accuses the Jewish rabbis of terrible things like having sex with very young children and so on. Crown then asked Wilson whether or not the author of the book, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person”. Wilson’s response was, “I have no idea if the author is a real person”.
Tab 6 was a reference to an article that I had published on RadicalPress.com back on August 13, 2013 entitled, Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew . Finally, I thought to myself, we’re getting to something that I, personally, had penned and I was waiting for Det. Wilson’s assessment of how he felt my writing was such an example of “hate” that it warranted inclusion in the Crown’s arsenal of classic cases of such literature. Det. Wilson then went on to explain to the court that it was a graphic image which I had included in my article that he perceived to be proof that it was yet another anti-Semitic, “hate” piece. I enclose that example directly below for the reader’s consideration.
Following Wilson’s comments regarding Tab 6 Crown then asked him if all of these online books were still up on the website and Wilson replied that all of the books that he found on the website were still there and to his knowledge none had been removed since I was arrested back on May 16th, 2012. It was at this point that Det. Wilson stated, “This is a massive website.”
Crown asked a few other related questions about Det. Wilson’s role in the arrest and he explained that he wasn’t present at my home during the search and seizure of my computers and firearms but that Cst. Gill, the “Exhibit officer” has provided him with my property afterwards. It was then that Det. Wilson sent the computers and firearms for “forensic” analysis so that the RCMP could show the court that I was the actual owner of these stolen devices.
It was at this point that the day’s testimony concluded and we left the courthouse.
The Preliminary Inquiry – Day Two
Day two proved to be much more productive in terms of time and purpose although it got off to a bit of a rough start. One of my witnesses that I had subpoenaed to appear on my behalf, Mr. Frank Frost, had traveled down to Quesnel at his own expense to attend the Preliminary Inquiry. Given that I had been told I would get my full day in court I was not that impressed when I only had approximately an hour and a half thus far allotted for the process.
When we arrived at the courthouse on Thursday, January 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. the court list showed a number of other case listed for the morning. At that point I decided to challenge the court on the matter and when the judge entered the court room and began discussing the scheduling with Crown and other lawyers present I stood up indicating that I had something to say and the judge told me to take a seat momentarily and he would get right to me. I sat down and within a few minutes he called my name and I stood up and said to him, “Your honour, I notice again today the list is getting longer than even yesterday and I’m not getting my day in court. I see this as an attempt by the Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. My wife, who is Jewish, is greatly offended by these charges brought against me therefore, in the interest of fundamental justice I ask that the charges be dismissed with prejudice.”
Judge Morgan responded by saying that he was not about to dismiss the case and also stated that there was no design on the part of Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. He followed those comments with a short dissertation on the problems and challenges that small communities face where they don’t have enough time and resources to deal with the ongoing case loads and therefore have to juggle and schedule them in order to do the best they can. He assured me that my situation was no different than any of the others. I had made my point and didn’t pursue the issue any further. From then on matters began to unfold as they should and within a very short period of time I was able to begin my cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson.
Being self-represented since the passing of my former counsel Mr. Doug Christie I was now faced with the task of cross-examining the testimony the arresting officer, Det. Wilson, had given to the court yesterday. I had prepared a series of questions that I planned to ask Wilson plus also a number of other court cases which related to the inquiry process which I intended to use if Crown began to object to any of the questions I had for Det. Wilson. Due to the length of all the questions, many of them not relevant at this point to the update itself, I will focus on only those that I feel are important to a general understanding of the case as a whole. As well, readers should bear in mind that Det. Wilson (and most likely B’nai Brith Canada’s agent Harry Abrams) monitor the RadicalPress.com website on a daily basis and I don’t wish to divulge certain matters which I intend to use later should the case go to trial.
Cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson
[Editor’s Note: Please bear in mind that all of the exchanges between myself and Det. Wilson during my cross-examination are taken from my notes which I made at the time I was questioning him and they may not be 100% accurate. Once I obtain a written transcript of the inquiry I’ll know if I erred on any of the minor details but for the most part I’m only quoting the things that I wrote down immediately upon Wilson’s stating them. Readers should also bear in mind that during the questioning I asked Det. Terry Wilson to inform the court as to his level of education and he answered by stating that he had received an Honours Degree in History from the University of Guelph, Ontario.]
I began cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson by first reading out the following:
“Det. Wilson, I’m going to begin by taking you to the Criminal Code section under which I am charged. Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
‘(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of … an indictable offence … or an offence punishable by summary conviction.’”
I then asked Wilson the following question: “I believe you stated yesterday in your testimony that the BC HATE CRIME TEAM was formed in 2009 and that it consists of two people, yourself and your partner/assistant Cst. Normandie Levas. Is this correct? Could you please tell the court how many actual convictions your unit has successfully prosecuted under Sec. 319(2) of the CCC since the formation of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM.” Wilson’s reply was that to date his “Hate Crime Team” had not convicted a single solitary soul! He did say though that there were two cases pending, my own plus another investigation that’s still underway.
Given all the media hype about there being so much “hate” on the Internet it begs the question as to just how much this propaganda about hatred that’s being emphasize by Jewish lobby groups like B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs is merely Zionist PR designed to justify the spending of vast amounts of taxpayer money in order to create these provincial “HATE CRIME UNITS” across Canada that ultimately only serve the interests of the foreign lobbyists who exploit them in order to monitor, harass, intimidate and punish critics of the Zionist ideology, their global mechanisms and the criminal state of Israel.
Considering Det. Wilson’s concerted effort to show the court that RadicalPress.com was wide open to the general public and that anyone in Canada could easily access the website plus all its accompanying links to a vast assortment of online books and articles, I asked Det. Wilson if he had any evidence that the material on the website was actually viewed and read by anyone. His reply was “Yes”. Then he stated that both of the two complainants, Harry Abrams and Richard Warman plus himself had accessed the site. That was the sum total of his evidence. No shit! That was it!
So it was manifestly obvious that no one else in all of Canada had gone on to the RadicalPress.com website, found it to be “anti-”Semitic” and then registered a complaint against it with the BC HATE CRIME TEAM claiming the site was promoting “hatred” contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Yet, because these two had filed complaints, that, in the Crown’s view, were reason enough to monitor my website; the RCMP did helicopter and ground surveillance of my home and property; stalked both my wife and myself in the days prior to my arrest; flew the “BC HATE CRIME TEAM” up from Surrey, B.C. (a distance of approximately 600 km) at great expense to the taxpayers of the province; conscripted a number of local police officers as well; stopped me on my way to Prince George on business; arrested me; handcuffed me; terrorized my wife; hauled me off to jail, leaving my wife on the highway in the middle of nowhere; then waited for some justice of the peace on the lower mainland to sign a phoney, illegal search warrant so the police could eventually enter my home, scavenge and steal what they could of my computers and electronic files, and make off with all of my firearms.
Does this sound like the “free and democratic society” called Canada that we see enshrined in the Charter of Rights or Freedoms or is it more in keeping with the Marxist Communist Bolshevik dictatorship under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin where all it took was a single accusation from an enemy and you suddenly found yourself dragged before a tribunal of crooked, conspiring commissars where all your legal rights suddenly vanished, truth was no defence and you’re then subjected to humiliation and the abject opprobrium of the state and either sent off to spend your remaining years in some northern gulag wasteland or else escorted down into a dark dungeon to receive a bullet in the back of the head?
For those readers who’ve yet to experience such tactics by the state this may all sound a bit fantastic but let me assure you that if it’s happening to me and my family and has happened to other Canadians in the recent past it doesn’t bode well for any of you either as this form of systemic covert repression on the part of the state continues to grow more bold and audacious by the day, aided and abetted by the Jewish lobbyists who now so blatantly advertise their power and influence over Canada’s elected Harper government.
As I thought about the two individuals who’s actions had precipitated all the endless angst of the police and the court against myself and my family I pondered what percentage of the Canadian population this would be when we consider that 2 out of 34.88 million people accessed RadicalPress.com and alleged that the site contained “anti-Semitic” articles and books that wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin. A quick calculation indicated that it amounted to 0.00000573394495 % of the total population of Canada.
103,000 Missing Emails
Another area of contention was the matter of all of my private email communications contained in the two computers that the police had taken from my residence. I had only recently received a thumb drive from the BC HATE CRIME TEAM containing what is purported to be all of my stolen emails just days before the Preliminary Hearing and to date I’ve not had the time to check to determine how many are stored on the 32 Gigabit memory stick. Crown was supposed to have returned these emails back in 2012 and it was only recently that Judge Morgan finally requested that CC Johnston contact Det. Wilson and ask him to return them. I had indicated to the judge that there was a large volume of relevant data contained in the emails which I needed for my defence and given that email communications are considered to be “private communications” and not admissible as evidence in Section 319(2) offences they should be returned to me.
It has always been my contention that Det. Wilson took my computers in order to access the information contained in the private communications between myself and my many associates and friends. When questioned on this matter Wilson stated that the police have the right to take an accused’s computer in order to search for evidence that would prove in a court of law that the accused was in fact the person posting to the website. When asked whether or not he or anyone else accessed and read the emails or shared them with anyone else Wilson did his best to deny having done so although he did concede that he saw some of them in the course of investigating the various articles and online books that were now being used to convince Judge Morgan there was sufficient evidence to warrant trying the case but that his main object was to verify the material now being presented to the court as Exhibit “A”. I should add that when I later cross-examined Cpl. Barry Salt he confirmed that when he did his initial analysis of my computers that he found 103,000 emails and 5,500 documents. As well, he stated that the number was closer to 107,500 by now. Unfortunately it didn’t cross my mind at the moment to ask him how he would be aware of any increase in numbers but that’s an issue to be investigated later.
There are very good reasons for me to suspect that Det. Wilson did in fact go through the private emails contained on my iMac computer. This came out when I questioned Wilson on the following:
Det. Wilson, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your own history with regard to these kinds of investigations.
Q: I understand that you once worked with the London Police Service. Am I correct in that regard?
[Wilson replied by stating that he had joined the police force in Ontario back in 1989 and the hate crime unit in 1995 and that he had moved out to B.C. in 2003 and eventually joined the BC Hate Crime Team in 2009. A.T.]
I also understand from the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Warman v. Kulbashian, 2006 CHRT 11, that while employed by the London Police Service, you executed a search warrant at the residence of James Scott Richardson, an individual suspected of uttering threats.
“[78] Mr. Wilson obtained a search warrant for the apartment in question, and executed it on September 28, 2001. Mr. Richardson was found in the apartment when the police entered and was arrested. He was charged with uttering threats against property and persons, and counselling the indictable offences of murder and of property damage…
[80] A police crime analyst specializing in electronic evidence was involved in the search operation. He seized a computer found in the apartment, and once back at the police station, made a mirror image of its hard drive and examined its content. Amongst the directories on the drive was one that contained the logs of Internet relay chats in which the user of the computer had participated…”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
According to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, you also executed an arrest warrant for Mr. Alexan Kulbashian, and a search warrant at the residence of Mr. Kulbashian’s parents:
[97] Mr. Wilson’s investigation eventually led him to conclude that “Totenkopf” and “Alex Krause” were pseudonyms for Mr. Kulbashian, and that he had also been involved in the publication of the September 14, 2001, Vinland Voice articles. Mr. Wilson therefore sought and obtained warrants for the arrest of Mr. Kulbashian (on charges similar to those filed against Mr. Richardson) and for the search of his residence at his parents’ home in North York. The warrants were executed on January 30, 2002…”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
And according to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian were later withdrawn:
“[105] In the end, the Crown prosecutor apparently decided to withdraw the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian before going to trial. According to Mr. Wilson, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable expectation of conviction on the charges laid against them.”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
But despite the withdrawal of criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian, the evidence that you collected in the course of Criminal Code search warrants was later disclosed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson’s reply was that the evidence was disclosed to the CHRC but that it was divulged to them only after the commission had subpoena’d Wilson in order to get it. A.T.]
And that same evidence, collected by you in the course of executing Criminal Code search warrants was also disclosed to Richard Warman, an individual who pursued a complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian.
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson replied that the evidence had been disclosed to the commission itself and not specifically to Warman. A.T.]
Q: When you disclosed this evidence to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did you know Mr. Warman?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
The Wilson/Warman Connection
Having established that Det. Wilson was involved with alleging and arresting and removing other individual’s computers from their homes over a decade ago I continued questioning Wilson as to his relationship with Richard Warman, the person who had first laid the Sec. 319(2) complaint against me back in 2011.
I asked Det. Wilson the following questions:
Q: When did you first establish contact with Mr. Warman?
[Wilson replied that he first connected with Richard Warman a year or two after he had joined the Ontario hate crime unit back in 1995 and that it was likely due to Warman having contacted the unit with a complaint. A.T.]
Q: Did you and Mr. Warman ever discuss the Section 13(1) complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: When did you first establish contact with Mr. Abrams?
[Wilson replied that he first heard from Harry Abrams back in April of 2011. A.T.]
Q: Did you initially make contact with Mr. Abrams or did he make contact with you?
[Wilson testified that it was Abrams who first contacted him. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware, at the time you executed the search of my residence, that I was subject to a proceeding under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
[Again Wilson affirmed that he was aware of my previous Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint that Abrams had filed against me back in 2007 but he attempted to downplay it by suggesting that his investigation focused on doing a whole new investigation separate from what was done (and still remains current) by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware that Harry Abrams was the complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware of any involvement on the part of Richard Warman in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?
[Here Det. Wilson states, “Yes, Warman was also a complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding.” Of course, officially, Richard Warman was not a complainant in the CHRC complaint brought against myself and RadicalPress.com in 2007 although Wilson’s reply now ties in with evidence which I have suggested all along confirms the fact that he was involved but only in a clandestine manner. A.T.]
Q: Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Warman?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Abrams?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Did Mr. Abrams ever express to you that he was concerned that the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me might not be successful?
[Wilson’s reply was that during his investigation he had interviewed Harry Abrams and Abrams had in fact mentioned his Sec. 13(1) complaint against me but that it was only in reference to Abram’s “fear” that this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was likely going to be repealed. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Richard Warman?
[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Harry Abrams?
[Again, Wilson says “No” but he then qualified that by adding it has been “just updated”, whatever that means. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with anybody? If so, who?
[Here Wilson stated that only those directly authorized to be involved in the investigation have been privy to the evidence collected. A.T.]
Tabs 1 & 2 – Germany Must Perish! and Israel Must Perish!
At this point in my cross-examination I focussed on the first two tabs mentioned in Crown’s Exhibit “A”, those being the online book, Germany Must Perish! written by Theodore N. Kaufmann and my satirical article Israel Must Perish!.
I began my questioning by asking Det. Wilson if he was familiar with the term “satire” and, if so, could he define for the court its meaning. His response was that it more or less meant “poking fun at something”. I then went on:
Q: Did Mr. Abrams ever suggest to you that the article Israel Must Perish! was a form of satire?
[Wilson’s response was that Abrams hadn’t told him anything that would lead him (Abrams) to believe it (Israel Must Perish! ) was satire. A.T.]
Q: Have you read the article Israel Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Were you, at the time you began investigating my website, familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Throughout the course of these proceedings you and the Crown have consistently referred to the article Israel Must Perish! as a “book”. Could you please explain to the court why you have done so?
[Wilson basically dodged the direct question by saying that it was “sections of a book” meaning sections of Germany Must Perish! A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the acronym ISBN regarding book publishing? It stands for International Standard Book Number. Every book published has an ISBN that is unique to that particular publication. Do any of your records show an ISBN number for the purported book Israel Must Perish! ?
[Wilson’s response to the first question was “No” he wasn’t familiar with the acronym “ISBN”. As for the second part of the question Wilson looked again at the images of the article that were in the Exhibit “A” binder and then stated, “I don’t recall one.” A.T.]
Q: Did it ever occur to you that the article Israel Must Perish! might be a satirical reference to the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson’s response to this question was very telling indeed. He simply stated, “No sir.” A.T.]
Q: When you were reading the article Israel Must Perish! on the RadicalPress.com website HYPERLINK http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1313 did you also read the Preface to it which was posted along with the article?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.”?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Do you accept that certain satirical material might fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling
Q: In your testimony yesterday, regarding Tab 5: of the Exhibit Index File 25166 which dealt with the book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, Crown Counsel Johnston asked you whether or not the author, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person.” You responded by saying, “I have no idea if the author is a real person.” Given the fact that you claim to be the lead “hate crime” investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM Mr. Wilson did it not occur to you that you might take the time to investigate and find out whether Elizabeth Dilling was or was not a “real person?” I did a simple Google search of Elizabeth Dilling’s name last night after returning home from court and found a total of 211,000 results in less than 30 seconds listing the various works of the author plus biographical documentation from the Jewish-owned Wikipedia site, the free online encyclopedia, which verifies that Elizabeth Dilling was in fact a real person. Given the fact that in your professional opinion you have determined this book to be “anti-Semitic” and worthy of proof, in your estimation, that it constitutes “hate propaganda” or “anti-Semitic hate literature” could you please tell the court why you would not have taken 30 seconds of your time to check into this matter?
Before I was able to read out the whole question to Det. Wilson he interjected by grinning and saying that after yesterday’s court session he had checked and now was cognizant of the fact that Elizabeth Dilling was an actual author of the aforesaid book. He obviously had been caught off guard by CC Johnston’s question regarding the author. His reply to my question about why he didn’t take the time to check the authenticity of the author was that he was “more concerned with the content of the book than with authenticating whether the author was real or not.”
Q: Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.”?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Question Regarding the Search Warrant
Q: On Page 8 of the BC Hate Crime Team pdf it gives an explanation for Sections 320 and 320.1 Warrants of Seizure. These warrant of seizure sections pertain to the removal of hate propaganda written material. This includes hate propaganda that is stored on computer systems and made available to the public, including through the Internet. A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication or electronic material—copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises or on a computer system within the jurisdiction of the court—is hate propaganda, may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of the copies or order the custodian of the computer system to provide an electronic copy of the material to the court.
Now I was charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. That section of the criminal code does not allow for warrants of seizure. Could you please tell the court how you were able to gain a search warrant for the removal of all of my computers and electronic files when I wasn’t charged under an offence that permitted such actions?
[Wilson responded by stating “Our search warrant was executed under Section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada not under Section 319(2).”A.T.]
Q: Do you accept that certain political commentary, even commentary which is extremely critical of an identifiable group of people, may fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson replied “Yes”, he did accept that certain political commentary may fall within the protection of Sec. 319(3) of the Criminal Code “but not in the case of RadicalPress.com“.A.T.]
Q: Could you briefly explain your expertise in identifying speech which is prohibited by Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and not saved by one or more of the defences listed in Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson replied by stating that he had graduated from Guelph University in Ontario with an Honours Degree in History and that he had been working with “hate crime” units both in Ontario and in B.C. for the past 18 years. A.T.]
Q: Could you define for the court the term “hate”?
[Wilson responded by stating that his “HATE CRIME TEAM” uses the definition of hate that was originally used in the R v Keegstra case. A.T.]
Q: Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code includes an intent requirement. The promoted hatred must be wilful, meaning that the words must be intended to cause hatred. What causes you to believe that this is the case here?
[Without the actual transcripts I can’t state exactly what his reply was other than he started talking about Elizabeth Dillings book, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today and her descriptions of what the Talmud states regarding children, Christians and non-Jews, aka “goyim” or cattle, and how this is intended to cause “hatred” toward those of Jewish ethnicity. A.T.]
Q: Do you have any expertise in psychology which would qualify you to accurately assess my intent? [Wilson: “No.” A.T.]
Q: I put it to you that the evidence you have given with regard to the material on my website is not expert evidence. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: I put it to you that all of the evidence you have given is, in fact, unqualified opinion evidence. Would you agree?
[Here Wilson launched into the issue and began telling the court of his many years of investigative experience in the field of “hate propaganda” and “hate crimes” but rather than stating that he was an “expert” he preferred to refer to his work as “investigative knowledge”. A.T.]
Q: What makes your opinion on the material on my website more valid than that of myself, the author and publisher of the material in
question?
[Wilson’s reply to this question was that his opinion was “no more valid than anyone else’s.” A.T.]
Hatred on SunNewsNetwork by Ezra Levant
This is just a screen shot. Please click on the url below to view.
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/11/doug-christie-on-suntv-authur-topham.html
Q: On November 11, 2012 I sent a private email to you and Cst. Normandie Levas and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston titled, A Personal Appeal. In my letter I spoke about the then recent television interview between my former counsel Douglas Christie and SunTV News Network employee Ezra Levant, host of the show The Source. I explained to you that in the course of the interview, which was approximately six minutes in length, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and a strong supporter of the state of Israel and the political ideology of that state known as Zionism, stated publicly the following about me:
“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic.”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where I, Arthur Topham just happen to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”
Is this not inciting and spreading hatred toward myself in a manner far beyond that which the Crown is alleging RadicalPress.com is doing?
[Wilson’s response to this was that Ezra Levant didn’t break any law in stating what he did on national tv because he wasn’t communicating statements that wilfully promoted hatred against an “identifiable group”. In other words he was free to malign and smear and tell the whole world that he “hated Arthur Topham” but that didn’t count because I wasn’t a member of an “identifiable group”. I then said to Det. Wilson, “But I am a Christian and so I am a member of an identifiable religious group.” He had no further comment on that. A.T.]
Following this question to Wilson I then read out my letter to the court. Judge Morgan cautioned me that the letter did state that it was written “without prejudice” and that if I entered it into the record it could be used against me. When I told him that I never received a reply from any of the recipients that it was sent to he said okay, go ahead.
A Personal Appeal
Sunday, November 11th, 2012
Cottonwood, B.C.
Dear Jennifer, Normandie and Terry,
Without Prejudice
Yes, this is most likely very unusual for all three of you that someone whom you are determined to convict of a “hate crime” and strip of their constitutional rights would have the audacity to write to you directly but given the circumstances under which I am now placed, I would ask that you open your hearts and your minds, if just for a few brief moments, and take approximate 6 minutes of your time (if you haven’t already done so) to view this video of the television interview that my lawyer Doug Christie did with Ezra Levant on the SunTV News Network’s show, The Source, out of Toronto only a few short hours after our (yours Jennifer and mine) appearance in court on Thursday the 8th of November.
Whether or not you are aware of it that television show is broadcast across the nation and the world and the number of viewers who watched it exceed, by far, the number of readers who frequent my (as one of the mainstream media’s writers recently stated), “nasty little blog called Radical Press.”
Within the span of those six short minutes, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and who also supports Zionism, publicly made the following disparaging statements about me and my website:
“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where Arthur Topham just happens to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”
If this is the sort of ‘impartial, objective and unbiased’ coverage that I can expect from Canada’s mainstream media throughout the upcoming trial do you find it that strange or unusual or unreasonable that I would want to hold on to my fundamental Charter right to be able to continue operating my website and posting my side of the story in my own defence for those who wish to have an alternative perspective to the one that the msm is now so blatantly broadcasting the minute that an Indictment has come down?
Do you not see the obvious slander, libel and defamation of my person and my motives and my work in these public statements? Do you not see how it already is prejudicing my chances for a fair and just trial? Does it mean nothing to you?
Is this what you, as professionals in the field of law and order and justice, condone and are striving to support in your apparent effort to take away my one means of defending myself from such open and mean spirited vituperation?
All I can say is that, in the stillness and quiet of your own inner mind and soul, you try to see and understand the injustice of what you are doing.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
———–
Q: Det. Wilson, are you familiar with Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Q: Section 11(d) of the Charter protects the presumption of innocence. I put it to you that this includes the idea that an accused person should not be punished for a crime unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with Section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Q: Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that no accused person should be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I suggest to you that this means the state should not unreasonably interfere with the liberty of an accused person unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: As of October 9, 2012, and to this day, there is no bail order preventing me from publishing content to RadicalPress.com pending trial. Is that correct?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: And in January 2013, this court specifically determined that it would not be appropriate to impose a bail condition prohibiting me from publishing on RadicalPress.com pending trial. Do you recognize this as a decision of this court?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: On November 21, 2012 I received an email from my then web hosting company Netfirms.com which contained an email letter which you had sent to Zach P of the legal department sometime between November 5th when the Indictment was handed down and November 21, 2012. In your letter you informed Zach P that I had been charged with a Section 319(2) Canadian Criminal Code offence, alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and that you felt that the contents of my website (quote) “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy. Is that correct?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: What was your objective in writing to NetFirms.com?
[Wilson then explained that he had written to my web host server “To notify them of a potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]
Q: By alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and suggesting to Netfirms.com that you felt that the contents of my website “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy were you not in effect asking NetFirms.com to do what this Honourable Court has been unwilling to do, namely shut down RadicalPress.com in advance of my trial?
[Wilson basically repeated what he’d just said about simply notifying them of a “potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]
Q: Do you think you allegations contained in your letter to Netfirms.com were appropriate in view of the presumption of innocence?
Q: Do you think your allegations were appropriate in view of the right to reasonable bail on just terms?
[Again Wilson basically repeated what he’d previously stated. A.T.]
Q: Your allegations, as stated in your email to Netfirms.com, resulted in my web hosting company giving me a 48 hour notice to remove all of the alleged “hateful speech” or else face having my website removed and losing seven years of publishing content. This sudden 48-hour ultimatum was impossible for me to rectify as Netfirms.com had no idea what the alleged offending articles were and as a further result of your allegations they were unwilling to even negotiate with me. I was faced with having to move the site to another host server in an extremely short period of time and in the process of doing so all the content on the website was damaged and hundreds upon hundreds of articles are now in need of editing to restore them to their original condition. Were you at all concerned that your allegations to NetFirms.com might result in the destruction of important evidence?
[Ditto. A.T.]
Testimony of Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud
The final lap in the Preliminary Inquiry was the calling of two witnesses in my defence. Both Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud are two of many individuals who have come to realize that the mainstream media no longer serves the general public when it comes to issues of social justice. Both these people have been through the wringer and the stories of the injustices that they’ve witnesses and been subjected to are nothing short of incredible.
The Lonnie Landrud story, should it ever receive the attention that it deserves, will undoubtedly go down in B.C. history as one of the most extraordinary and horrific examples of police corruption and government cover up ever to have occurred in this province. Mr. Landrud had the unfortunate fate in 1999 of witnessing the killing of a young woman by the name of Deena Lynn Braem in Quesnel by two RCMP officers, Cst. Paul Collister and Cst. Bev Hosker. When he called 911 and reported the incident it was the beginning of what is now 15 years of hell on earth for Mr. Landrud. He has had eleven attempts on his life since he first sought justice and at present the police have placed a $100,000 bounty on his head. Mr. Landrud has done everything conceivable to have his case investigated by an independent body and to date has had all of his honest and earnest efforts rebuffed by every level of government from the Prime Ministers office through to the RCMP Complaints Commission and the office of the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark. During one attempt on his life by the RCMP Lonnie Landrud, in self-defence, shot his attacker Cst. Paul Collister with a 12-gauge shotgun, severely damaging the police officers left arm to the point where ample DNA evidence was left at the scene of the shooting to verify the fact that the officer had been wounded. The whole incident was covered up and denied by the investigating agencies and to date no one is willing to investigate and verify the evidence that still exists which will prove all of the allegations which Mr. Landrud has been desperately attempting to have examined.
When I finally heard about Mr. Landrud’s story and watched the videos where he had been interviewed back in 2007 I ran his story on RadicalPress.com in order to assist him in getting the truth out about what he had witnessed and suffered since the night he stumbled on the murder scene. Lonnie Landrud’s story is best told in his own words and writings and for this reason I’ve placed the url to his videos below and also the url to (yet another) letter which Mr. Landrud wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP Opposition Leader, Thomas Mulcair, Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Federal Solicitor General, Rob Nicholson, Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia and Adrian Dix, NDP Leader of the Opposition Party on April 24th, 2013.
Mr. Landrud testified at the Preliminary Inquiry and told the court about his case and the urgent need for alternative media sites like RadicalPress.com that are willing to carry his story where no none of the mainstream media would do the job.
Click on the url below to view
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1362
Mr. Frank Frost also testified before the court regarding the importance of the social media and alternative news networks like
RadicalPress.com. Mr. Frost is another individual who has been the victim of RCMP corruption and judicial misfeasance. Again, like Lonnie Landrud, Mr. Frost followed all the customary channels in an effort to expose the murder of a young child in Victoria, B.C. and was met with police and judicial cover-up every which way he turned. Framed and incarcerated for four months in the Prince George Regional Correction Centre where he was refused even a single phone call for
FOUR MONTHS, Frank Frost has continued to take a pro-active position with respect to demands that the corruption that he’s exposing within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the RCMP and the Courts be investigated and rectified. For further information on Mr. Frost’s case please watch his videos located
here.
We have not heard the last from either of these two valiant, courageous individuals nor have we heard the last from RadicalPress.com with respect to the pervasive corruption within every level of Canadian government, the mainstream media and all levels of Canada’s judiciary.
This wraps up Legal Update #17 for January 27th, 2014.
![Photo: Huge Victory for Free Speech in Topham Case: Judge Refuses Crown's Demand that Bail Require Shutdown of Radicalpress.com
It is a sign of how degraded a country we have become that we must hail the fact that a British Columbia Criminal Court judge refused demands by the Crown to impose as a bail condition in new "hate law" charges against publisher and blogger Arthur Topham that he remove ALL content from his website Radicalpress.com and that he not post on ANY website.
In other words, before any trial as to whether the contents of a small portion of Radicalpress.com constituted "wilful promotion of hate" under Canada's notorious "hate law", Mr. Topham was to be gagged.
The case for new bail conditions was argued in Quesnel, British Columbia on April 9.
•Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston acted as if it had already been established that some of the contents on Radicalpress.com, including a satire of the book Germany Must Perish, was "hate" and that some of Mr. Topham's recent writings are also "hate". Her say so was enough to make it so, in her submissions. She said: "There is strong evidence that Mr. Topham continues to promote hatred of people of Jewish origin, in such articles as Salute to Zionism, on his website. The Crown is asking for bail to prevent Mr. Topham from continuing to publish 'hate' and compound the same offence while on bail. " Then, with totally muddled reasoning, she continued: "The mere possibility that Mr. Topham might be successful with one of the defences is not enough to continue to publish 'hate.'" But, clearly, if the defence were successful, the publications would not be hate. Even she admitted that only a small portion of Radicalpress.com dealt with Jews or Zionism. "There's other stuff going on there, yes."
As a precedent, she cited the judgment in the "hate law" case against Bill Noble, who was self represented. He was sentenced to six months in jail for Internet postings and a three year gag preventing him from posting on the Internet or owning a computer or any device like a smart phone capable to accessing the Internet. This pretty piece of Stalinism was imposed, not in North Korea or Cuba, but in Canada.
Mr. Topham, although self represented, marched into court with a masterful submission which had been prepared for him and a three-inch thick Book of Authorities.
Mr. Topham's Memorandum argued that penalties were being imposed before an finding of fault. "Even if the order sought was capable of suppressing hate propaganda, it would not be justifiable in this case as it would not minimally impair the Respondent's Charter rights. The conditions sought by the Crown would not merely prohibit the Respondent from publishing hateful material, but would, in fact, prevent him from publishing any material."
A comment Judge Morgan made offered a clue to his decision: "Where the dividing line is between free speech and the limits on speech in society is the crux of this case."
Here are the key paragraphs of the decision refusing to impose a gag order bail condition on the beleaguered Quesnel publisher.
Decision:
[32] Considerations of bail in section 319(2) prosecutions (willfully promoting hatred) are somewhat different from the usual criminal prosecutions. This is because the central issue at trial will not be what occurred , but will be what effect resulted. The publicly communicated statements will have to be established by the Crown to promote ‘hatred’ as the word is defined in Canadian jurisprudence.
[33] The primary remedy sought by the Crown if successful at trial will be to prevent Mr. Topham (and thereby perhaps others) from posting hate promoted material. The Crown is, in effect, seeking the same remedy pre-trial through a cease and desist bail order. To be successful the court would have to be satisfied that on the test of a balance of probabilities all aspects of Crown’s case will be made out, including that the effect of the communications of concern will meet the threshold of promoting hatred. In effect, the court is being asked to decide the case on the balance of probability standard.
[34] On the other hand, it is an initially forceful consideration when dealing with material that is clearly repugnant and offensive, to ask what harm would result by simply shutting it down until the matter can be decided at trial. One can easily imagine situations where the material is so repugnant and offensive that even solely from the judge’s perspective and without direct evidence of harm, the likely risk of harm will be evident and outweigh a temporary curtailment of Charter rights.
[35] However, court ordered prior restraint on a person’s s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, has the risk of being overbroad and should be granted only in clear cases.
[36] In the case before me, the material of concern is primarily material written by others and allegedly posted by Mr. Topham on his website. The one document I was referred to that involved a minor amount of originality is entitled ‘Israel Must Perish’ and is based on a document written many years ago by someone else entitled ‘Germany Must Perish’. In ‘Israel Must Perish’ the accused is alleged to have replaced all references to ‘Germany’ with ‘Israel’ and all references to ‘Germans’ with ‘Jews’. Mr. Topham has published both versions on his website. Mr. Topham says – and is not contradicted by the Crown – that all of the material of concern is available on other internet sites not controlled by him, including notable sites such as Amazon.com and Archive.org.
[37] There is some evidence that Mr. Topham uses his website to publish other materials that are not alleged to foster hate, and to use it for other reasons, such as providing a voice to other fringe persons or groups. As of late, he has been using his website in an attempt to raise money to pay for a lawyer to defend him against the present charges.
[38] Although I give Crown credit for being open to finding ways to minimally impair Mr. Topham’s rights while at the same time addressing the concern of the publication of the offensive material, I find that in this case, ordering Mr. Topham to shut down his website may well be an over broad prior restraint and that, based on the evidence before me, the effect on reducing any harm caused may well be minimal given the material is primarily not original and is available from other internet sources.
[39] I agree with Ms. Johnston that ordering Mr. Topham to remove from his website any reference to people of Jewish religion or ethnic origin would be like having him pick out pepper. What I foresee from this is any effort to carve a fine balance would very possibly lead to breach related charges arising from confusion and misinterpretation.
[40] The Crown’s goal of stopping Mr. Topham from putting on his website offensive material will of course depend on whether Crown is successful at trial in establishing the offensive material has the effect of promoting hate. If the Crown proves its case, the sentencing judge will be in a much informed position in determining the appropriate breadth of restraint orders and other sanctions.
[41] Although I decline to order as a condition of bail that Mr. Topham stop operating his entire website or to order that he cease and desist from posting any materials referencing people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, I am satisfied that his Undertaking should be amended to include a condition that he not post on any internet site or otherwise publish the names of the two civilian complainants already referred to in condition 2. of his present Undertaking, and that he immediately remove their names from any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants.
R.D. Morgan
Provincial Court Judge
This final condition is odd and one which Mr. Topham may appeal. Under his original bail conditions, he is already not allowed to contact or communicate (except through his lawyer) with the two chronic complainants. Thus, he is not to publish the names of Richard Warman or Harry Abrams on Radicalpress.com or "any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants."
Both these men are long-time antagonists of Mr. Topham. They are players and have repeatedly sought to silence people with whom they disagree or who, in their view, have hateful ideas. Why shouldn't they be named? Allowing for semi secret complaints would seem to undermine the openness of our legal system. Abrams was the original complainant in the case against Radicalpress.com in 2007 under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. When the case was adjourned sine die in 2009 and it appeared that the section was about to be repealed by Parliament, Abrams was joined by Warman in 2011 in making complaints to the B.C. "Hate" Squad under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.
No evidence was submitted to the Court of any "harm or intimidation" that had been done to the complainants as a result of their names being mentioned on Radicalpress.com over the seven year life of the efforts to gag the anti-Zionist dissident.
Mr. Topham notes: " I've had to file another application to question the new condition that says I can't have either Warman's or Abrams' name on my website. That would eliminate all the legal documents with their names on them. Rather weird. I can see removing the names from my own articles, commentary, etc. but not court documents."
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION](https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/p480x480/10177507_295039177328996_5698668603404241241_n.jpg)
