Member of Parliament for Prince George – Peace River – Northern Rockies
Dear Bob,
Thank you for taking the time on Monday July 15th, 2024 at the Beanery in McBride to have a conversation with me. I noticed that some of the things I said were surprising and unfamiliar to you. I can assure you that I have reached my conclusions after a great deal of research and inquiry, combined with personal experiences which have proven to me that many of my conclusions were correct. I am always open to learning and to changing my mind if presented with evidence which shows that I erred.
Rather than try to persuade you of this or that, I would like to leave you with a few questions, as stimulus and food for thought. I do not expect you to provide me with answers to these questions as I do not believe that you have answers just yet, from what I gathered during our conversation on Monday. My hope is that the questions will be the seeds which will germinate one day soon. Perhaps some of these questions will prompt you to do your own research into these matters. Once you really see what is going on in the world, you cannot unsee it. Nor will you want to, even if the truth is uncomfortable at times – at least that is my personal experience. This old saying is apt: The Truth will set you Free.
I simply ask that you please send me acknowledgement of having received and personally read this emailed letter (not just one of your staff members). Here are my questions for you to ponder:
Why are there many countries, including Canada, which enshrine history into law? Is it possible for past events to be forced into existence by laws? Can events of the past be altered by the stroke of a pen today?
Why do we not leave history for historians, scholars, researchers and archaeologists to decipher and revise as new evidence emerges?
If there are laws forbidding us to question the Holocaust, why are there no similar laws criminalizing the questioning of the Holodomor? Or the Armenian genocide? Or any number of other genocides?
Why is evidence forbidden in “Holocaust trials” in Germany? (The defendant can be charged a second time – or a third and fourth time and so forth – for presenting evidence during the trial – I know this to be true because it happened to my brother.)
Why do lawyers go to jail for defending their client in these “speech crime” trials? (Just as an example, research Sylvia Stolz, a German lawyer who went to jail for doing her job too well while defending her client.)
Why were Jews expelled from countless nations, states, and regions during the past several thousand years? Are Gentiles simply born with an “anti-Semitic” gene that makes them want to evict Jews after having welcomed them in? Or is it possible that the behaviour of the Jews caused the Gentiles to evict them?
What exactly is “anti-Semitism”? Is it an emotion? Is it words? Perhaps words which state uncomfortable facts? And why are there laws criminalizing these words and emotions?
When I spoke to you about geo-engineering (i.e. chem-trails), you asked why they would do this. That is a good question. Why indeed? And what are they spraying us with? Why are there so few insects anymore?
Perhaps on a related note, why do they call CO2 a dangerous gas, a pollutant which must be reduced, when in fact it is the stuff of life? Why do green-house operators pump more of this “dangerous gas” into their greenhouses?
Did you know that we are actually at a very low level of atmospheric CO2 when viewed in the long historical record? And did you know that average temperatures in the distant past have been significantly higher than they are now, and that the earth was teeming with life during those times?
You did acknowledge that the many fires in Alberta in 2023 started all at once, indicating that they were man-made. Yet we never stopped hearing about “climate change” in relation to the fires. Why would these man-made fires be conflated with the “climate change” narrative?
Why have so many food processing plants mysteriously or “accidentally” burnt down over the last few years?
Why are so many small family farms being attacked by way of ever-increasing government rules and regulations, and orders to kill their livestock due to some invisible non-existent virus or too much “greenhouse gas” emissions or any number of other invented and invisible threats?
Why did they tell us the “vaccine” was “safe and effective”, when in reality it was never “safe” nor “effective”? (now by their own admission)
Are you aware that the jab was an “experimental” gene-modifying “therapy”? (also by their own admission)
Why were we coerced (fired from jobs, not allowed into universities, prevented from travelling, shamed and blamed, etc) into taking this “experimental” injection?
Is there any evidence to substantiate the serious allegations about the mass murder – or even a single murder – of Indigenous school children in Canadian residential schools? Why have none of the alleged “unmarked graves” been dug up? Why the resistance to investigate?
Do you know and understand the contents of Bill C-63, Canada’s Online Harms Act? Do you know that it includes provisions to make a court order against a person for “hate” speech which they are suspected they might do in the future? Do you know that the penalties section of Bill C-63 includes life in prison for certain “speech crimes”? (I realize that your party is opposing this bill – that is great – but still, I would ask why every single Member of Parliament is not screaming from the rooftops about this tyrannical bill. My online search in the parliamentary records of your spoken words did not yield results for this particular Bill – but I stand to be corrected if I err.)
Have you ever heard about the Bolshevik revolution?
Did you know that the Bolshevik leaders were predominantly Jewish?
Are you aware that tens of millions of Russians were murdered, tortured, starved and terrorized under Bolshevik rule during the previous century?
Are you aware that there were laws in the Soviet Union against “anti-Semitism”, prior to and during the reign of terror? Are you familiar with Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the “hate speech” law? Can you connect the dots?
There are many more questions I could pose, but that is enough for now. I truly hope that these questions will cause you to pause and reflect, why nothing really makes sense in the world as seen through the prism of the mainstream narrative being prescribed for us. Our very existence depends on enough of us waking up to the truth about who is doing what to us.
Thank you for reading this. I am copying a few other MPs and I am also sending this letter by blind copy (bcc) to many other people. It is, in effect, an open letter.
About a half a year ago, I was invited to write an article about my story for a popular magazine in the southern interior of British Columbia Canada. The magazine has a respectable print circulation, and it shall remain unnamed here as it is not my intent to embarrass anyone. The article was to be about my personal persecution story which of course would reveal some forbidden truths. The publisher of this magazine is a man who understands the truth about history, and he requested this story with the genuine desire to publish something which might help others to open their eyes about the controversial topic which got me into hot water. Unfortunately, he must have lost the nerve to publish my article. Considerable time and effort was put into writing this piece which was aimed at an ordinary audience, perhaps for folks who may not have looked into this hot topic yet, outside of the Hollywood version we have all learnt.
Thus, I offer the article here now. Please comment and/or share, as you see fit.
*************************
When I was a child in junior high school, I did not understand the significance of our social studies teacher’s words, “the victors write the history books.” I wondered, what difference does it make who writes the history books? Don’t they just write about what happened? I could not even conceive of the possibility of anyone writing down anything but the facts. The concept of lies being printed in books simply did not exist in my young mind.
A little later, as a young adult I read some novels about political prisoners, but those stories only happened in a far-away and distant land, where an evil dictator ruled over the people with an iron fist. Political prisoners – people imprisoned merely for the things they said and for their dissenting views – those only existed very far away, never in our land– or so I believed. Nothing like that could ever happen in our country, because we had freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and we also had democracy. We were told that democracy was the very best system ever, and anything else was just uncivilized. The mantra “government by the people, of the people and for the people” was drummed into us.
Now imagine that in our perfect democracies in so many of our modern western countries, there exist laws which tell us that we are not allowed to be critical of a certain group of people, and if we merely point to facts about what that group of people is doing and if we name that group of people, we are called haters and there is a law against being a “hater”. Imagine also that there are laws which legislate our history into place. Whoa! Stop the train! History determined by lawmakers? Isn’t history a subject for historians to figure out? I thought laws are supposed to be about basic things like thou shalt not steal or murder.
The other day some friends gathered in my back yard on a sunny afternoon for a picnic. One of the children, around 11 years old, held up a book and asked me if he was allowed to read it. The book was authored by yours truly, myself, and I had just given a copy to another guest, and so there it was, on the table where the child spotted it. I said, yes of course. He promptly sat down and read the first few pages. Maybe ten minutes later, the child looked up at me with big eyes and asked in a clear voice, without judgement only inquisitiveness, “why did you go to jail?”
It was a simple question from a curious child, and I needed to give him a straightforward and matter-of-fact answer to his perfectly natural question. There was silence while all eyes turned to me in anticipation.
“Law makers have made laws to tell us what we must believe about history. These laws forbid us questioning the history that has been taught to us. We have been told that certain events happened a certain way, and laws have been made which tell us that we must not disagree with that version of events. After I looked into these stories which were taught to us and which I had believed all my life, I came to the conclusion that it all happened differently than what they told us. Then I made a video and talked out loud about it, which means I broke their laws. Then they put me in jail.”
The child seemed satisfied with my explanation, he put the book back on the table and went off to play with the other children. That conversation was over, and everyone carried on where they had left off.
What is this story which is so set in stone, so untouchable, so sacrosanct, that we must not investigate, we must not question, and we must believe? What is the one word which elicits gasps of horror and incredulity when we dare say we do not believe it? You probably have guessed it by now: “The Holocaust”.
Indeed, many western countries have laws which criminalize anyone who dares to question and dispute the narrative about 6 million Jews being murdered in gas chambers in “Nazi Germany” during the second World War.
A bit of background is in order, to my own awakening to what is really going on in the world. In 2011, I began to figure out the false flag nature of the big event we call nine-eleven. My brother Alfred Schaefer sent some emails to family members about it and I responded with many questions and “how do you know this and how do you know that?” I had already heard about the “9/11 Truth Movement” but had not yet really delved into it, so when Alfred started talking about it, I was hungry for information. He sent a few links to articles and videos, and I launched myself onto this journey of learning, searching, reading, questioning, listening, until I was completely satisfied about the correctness of my conclusions that the government, media, and other institutions were lying to us about what happened that fateful day of September 11, 2001. At first I felt nauseous about it, as it was turning my world upside-down, but then I came through the tunnel into the light on the other side and felt an urgency to tell other people what I had learnt. I considered myself a peace activist, and I thought that if we could just explain this deception about what happened then everyone else would understand it too, and we could stop the wars abroad and stop the development of a police state at home.
It surprised me when I experienced some resistance to my leafletting and other educational efforts. Why was there this pushback?
Little did I know that some time later, the pushback would take on whole new dimensions as I dove down the proverbial rabbit hole and discovered that lying was not invented in 2001 and learned that they really lied to us about WW2. By now almost everyone knows that 9/11 was a false flag military operation and so when you talk about it, hardly anyone bats an eyelid. But the holocaust? That is entirely on another level.
They say it is the most documented event in history. What does that actually mean? Where is the evidence? Just because they say it over and over again that it is the most proven event ever, does not make it so. In fact, when it comes to proving it in court, they cannot and they do not present evidence to prove it. Their solution? They declare that if something is common knowledge or is self-evident, then evidence is not required. The judicial subterfuge began with the Nuremberg trials right after WW2. Articles 19 and 21 of those trials stipulated that the tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence and that something that is common knowledge or self-evident does not need evidence to prove it.
Judicial notice has been used in courts ever since then, with very few exceptions. The holocaust trials in Toronto in the 1980’s when Ernst Zündel was being tried under the “Spreading False News” law, was one such exception. Zündel’s attorney Douglas Christie was successful in bringing much evidence into the court, evidence and testimonies which shredded the official story. At the same time the key witness for the Crown, Raul Hilberg, was unable to produce a single piece of forensic evidence that a gas chamber existed.
In holocaust court cases in Germany, they simply forbid evidence. This I experienced firsthand during the Schaefer sibling trial in 2018.
What was I on trial for? A video. In 2016 while visiting my brother Alfred in Germany (he reverse migrated in the 1980’s back to the country from where our parents had come in the 1950’s), we made a short video entitled “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust”. In this video, I tell the story about how I learnt early in life to hide my German roots while at school, but at home loved the German traditions. Then as a teenager after learning about the terrible things that were done by the “bad Nazis” and by Adolf Hitler, I bitterly reproached my mother for not having done anything to stop those horrors from happening. My mother answered me by saying that they did not know about those things back then. She assured me they never heard about any gas chambers until much later. They knew there were work camps, but they did not know about death camps. Less than 3 minutes into the video I say,
“Now I know why she did not know. It is because these things did not happen.”
After I explain a few more things about those camps, I apologize to the spirit of my parents (they had both passed away years earlier), and express my relief that my parents and grandparents had not been part of a generation that suddenly turned into monsters. I could be proud to be German after all.
In late 2017 I went back to Germany for a little holiday over Christmas and New Years, and on January 3rd, 2018, I was arrested. Later I learned that my cousins had reported Alfred and myself to the police after they saw the video a year and a half earlier. My cousins are kind and good people. They thought they were doing the right thing. But they are very much the product of the “re-education” program à la George Orwell style.
Here is what Sefton Delmer (1904-1979), former British Chief of ‘Black propaganda’ said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm.
“Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we’re only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final.
“Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
Back to the 2018 trial of the Schaefers in Germany. Evidence was simply forbidden. We were not allowed to present evidence or argument which would support us in explaining how we reached our conclusions, as that was deemed to be a new crime. The chief judge stopped Alfred numerous times during his testimony to warn him that if he was to continue speaking along those lines, then new charges would have to be pressed. Alfred would reply,
“You want to lock me up for 6 million years anyway; I am just speaking the truth, and so I will continue.”
Sure enough, they pressed new charges against Alfred and he was sentenced to an additional year in prison for the things he said and did during the 2018 trial.
Our lawyers submitted applications on numerous occasions for recusal of our judges, on grounds of extreme prejudice and bias. Each time, the higher up panel of judges would over-rule the application, and the inquisition continued. Here are just two examples of the many demonstrations of extreme bias. When Alfred was half way through reading page one of a seventy-plus page defence statement, the chief judge interrupted impatiently and told Alfred to summarize the statement in a few sentences. On another occasion the judge was caught commanding a psychologist to write an exemption letter for a police witness whose testimony was likely to be favourable for us.
On another occasion the judge had all the pens, pencils and paper removed from the people in the public gallery, so that they were unable to take notes during our trial. If you, dear reader, try to acquire a transcript of the Schaefers speech-crime trial of 2018, you will fail. It does not exist. The proceedings were not recorded. The only things which would remain on the record are written statements, but any questions and answers, or speeches which were not read from a prepared script, those would not be recorded. One could be forgiven for thinking this resembled an Inquisition of the Dark Ages rather than a trial in a modern western “democracy”.
The judges seemed uninterested in facts and evidence. But they were very interested in whether or not the act of clicking certain buttons to release videos onto the internet had occurred in Germany or elsewhere. A huge amount of time was spent on cross-examining a technical computer expert who had been tasked with examining the hardware on which the videos were made and what IP addresses were used in their dissemination. Germany has a law, and the judge wanted to determine if we broke their law.
Nothing drives that point home better than the final words of the judge presiding over the Ernst Zündel trial in Germany in 2007. The judge said,
“It matters not whether the holocaust happened or not; what matters is that it is against the law to deny it and you broke the law.”
He then sentenced Zündel to 5 years in prison, the maximum penalty under Paragraph 130 of the German Criminal Code, the same law that Alfred and I were charged under.
If Canadian readers think this kind of thing could never happen here in Canada, think again. Already in the 1980’s, when Ernst Zündel was on trial in Toronto, the culminating statement of the judge during one of Zündel’s hearings was that truth is not a defence.
By the way, even lawyers go to jail in Germany if they do their job too well. In other words, if they present evidence which would explain how the defendant reached his or her conclusions, they are charged under the same law that their client was charged under. Precisely that happened to Sylvia Stolz, one of the lawyers on Ernst Zündel’s defence team during his trial in Germany. She went to prison for over three years for that “crime”.
Perhaps we are all wrong in thinking we need hard evidence to prove something happened or not. Let us look at the erudite statement coming from 34 French historians. This piece of wisdom was published on February 21, 1979, in Le Monde, the paper of record in France.
“It is not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically since it took place. That is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our function simply to recall that truth: There is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.”
There cannot be any debate, because those who push the holocaust narrative will lose the debate, and they know it. That is why they must make laws forbidding dissent.
Truth does not fear investigation. Only lies need to be protected by laws.
Just as I was editing and completing this article, an interesting event occurred, very relevant to this story. On September 1st, 2023, the BC Hate Crimes unit of the RCMP arrived on my doorstep. They spent two days driving (one day here and one day back), lots of expenses, just to have a conversation with yours truly, Monika Schaefer. They had received a complaint, anonymous of course, about the Truth and Justice for Germans Society website, (truthandjusticeforgermans.com), that it incites HATE. Anyone can complain if they do not like the contents of a website, and their identity is protected. Then the taxpayers of Canada pay for the witch hunt and inquisition that follows.
Perhaps readers of this article would like to visit the website and search for the “hate”. You may be surprised by the education you receive there.
History is not changeable by writing laws. No amount of hand-wringing or squealing or persecution of dissidents will change the facts about what actually happened or did not happen during WW2. The entire population of Canada or even the World could be jailed over this, but that would still not change the facts about what happened in the past. The truth is the truth is the truth, and ultimately, the truth always wins. I am happy to be on the winning side. And so should we all be.
Sadly, we have lost a great thinker, writer, teacher, courageous truth-teller, and brave warrior who always fought for what is right. Arthur Topham passed on after an illness with cancer on the 23rd of March, 2024 in Quesnel, BC. He was 77 years old. Many people will remember Arthur through his brilliant writing and creation of memes and articles on his site Radical Press. This began in 1998 as a print publication called The Radical with a subtitle “Digging to the root of the issues”, and a few years later he switched from print to solely online production. The subtitle was a direct reference to the etymology of the word “radical” – the root. Digging to the root of the issues was what Arthur Topham did brilliantly. He had long been an activist who wrote frequent letters to political figures and to editors of newspapers, and over the years, as he dug down deep to learn about true history, his writings became ever more dangerous to the “establishment”. There were complaints from Jews about the contents of his Radical Press website, and a dozen or more years of legal harassment, persecution and conviction followed. I was first introduced to Arthur Topham in about 2013, and I became an avid reader of his Radical Press on-line publication. In subsequent years Arthur published several articles in which he featured content from me. Later when I was thrown in jail, Arthur worked tirelessly to publicize my case. He created memes and posters, he informed the public about whom they could write letters to on my behalf, and he wrote excellent letters pushing for my release. He was so effective in fighting for me,in fact, that at some point he was accused of breaching his own sentencing conditions which resulted in more years of legal harassment for him. I am forever grateful to Arthur Topham for all that he did, for all of us.
(Holocaust skeptic Monika Schaffer) This was how Arthur finished one of his emails to me a number of years back, before my incarceration. I include it here as a message of inspiration to us all. “Be strong my friend and keep on loving, living, making music and speaking the truth! And may God protect you always. (My theme has always been Psalm 23 since I began this quest and I find great comfort in it. The table is just about prepared!) Mehr Licht!” [More Light!]
Although he at various times occupied various parts of the political spectrum, Arthur Topham was a consistent free speech warrior. He paid dearly for his outspoken courage. CAFE supported him at his 2015-2016 “hate trial” in Quesel. An eclectic group of free speech supporters attended the trial and rallied around him, people from as far away as Japan, England (expert witness Gilad Atsman), the U.S., Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and, of course, British Columbia.
In cross-examination, we learned many interesting things, especially from Len Ruidner, the Canadian Jewish Congress’s “expert” witness. Some of the problematic and horrific, yes, hateful, verses from the Talmud, for instance, justifying sex with little children, he didn’t disavow, except to suggest that these passages were merely rabbis “speculating.” The jury, in a typically Canadian half-and-half decision, convicted Arthur of one count of promoting “hate” and acquitted him of the other. Juries in Canada don’t give reasons. So, we never learned which writing they deemed “hate” and which was merely opinion. — Paul Fromm, Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression.
Arthur attended Simon Fraser University back around 1969. He became a school teacher and taught in Quesnel for a while.
For a long time, he published a hard copy tabloid called The Radical. It was a lot of fun — an old fashioned hippy paper advocating decriminalizing marijuana and all sorts of alternative ideas. He/the Radical was put through the meatgrinder of Court because he printed the scandal about Indian Chief Ed John being accused as having committed sexual assault. At that point in time, Ed John had been appointed to the Cabinet of British Columbia, even though he was not an elected MLA! Arthur wound up in the Supreme Court of BC at Vancouver, along with Kevin Annett. The judge, James Taylor, issued an Order that Arthur was prohibited from publishing anything about the scandal. I was there. Arthur stood up in Court. Mr Annett was there, lurking around, but lacked the courage? to go into the Courtroom. The thing was just begging to break wide open as an important test of Freedom of the Press but Arthur did not have the means to pursue it. Years later, his own people called-out Ed John. The turmoil Arthur went through after being charged with “hate speech” demonstrated how the meatgrinder process of the criminal justice system is a punishment unto itself.
The cops / the Prosecutors did things that were blatantly ILlegal. For instance, they walked in with a very suspect Warrant to Search, seized everything in sight, especially his computer, which was crucial to him being able to prepare his Defence. Then they kept his computer for years. Lawyer Doug Christie relished the case, because it gave him the opportunity to test his question about “if something happens in cyber-space, alleged to be a crime, where does it actually take place?”
Sadly, Doug died in 2013 prior to Arthur’s trial. At Arthur’s trial, the judge took Judicial Notice that the material at issue, Arthur repurposing the book Germany Must Perish”, into a perfect parallel entitled Israel Must Perish” was satire.
I thought that what he had done was very witty.I am pretty sure that Arthur had composed his piece of Art ( satire) at his home in Quesnel British Columbia. Then sent it via the internet to a website with a server in the United States of America. At that point, anyone who accessed that website, in order to view it on a computer screen, was “operating’ in the territory of the U.S. of A.The point being no-one ever did an act in the real world anywhere in the Dominion of Canada, which contravened section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code.
In the US, that material is not a criminal offence. In the US the concept of Free Speech, includes the reciprocal … the right to listenI was in communication with Arthur all that time. I got Dr Henry Makow to agree that he would take the witness stand for the Defendant. But Arthur’s lawyer never called him.
As well, I was adamant that Arthur take the witness stand in his own defence. But his lawyer Barkley Johnson prevented him doing so. A jury wants to see the Defendant. They make up their mind whether or not they like him. Then they decide if he’s guilty or not. The black humor at the end of the trial was there were two charges identical except for the dates of the allegations. The jury convicted him of one, but acquitted him of the other! The sentence was UN-believable: he was ordered not to talk about anything to do with the Jews for yearsHe was pretty de-moralized for years after. — Gordon Watson, Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians,
Sadly, we have lost a great thinker, writer, teacher, courageous truth-teller, and brave warrior who always fought for what is right. Arthur Topham passed on after an illness with cancer on the 23rd of March, 2024 in Quesnel, BC. He was 77 years old.
Many people will remember Arthur through his brilliant writing and creation of memes and articles in the Radical Press. This began in 1998 as a print publication called The Radical with a subtitle “Digging to the root of the issues”, and a few years later he switched from print to solely online production. The subtitle was a direct reference to the etymology of the word “radical” – the root. Digging to the root of the issues was what Arthur Topham did brilliantly. He had long been an activist who wrote frequent letters to political figures and to editors of newspapers, and over the years, as he dug down deep to learn about true history, his writings became ever more dangerous to the “establishment”. There were complaints from Jews about the contents of his Radical Press website, and a dozen or more years of legal harassment, persecution and conviction followed.
I (Monika Schaefer) was first introduced to Arthur Topham in about 2013, and I became an avid reader of his Radical Press on-line publication. In subsequent years Arthur published several articles in which he featured contents from me. Later when I was thrown in jail, Arthur worked tirelessly to publicize my case. He created memes and posters, he informed the public about whom they could write letters to on my behalf, and he himself wrote excellent letters pushing for my release. He was so effective in fighting for me, in fact, that at some point he was accused of breeching his own sentencing conditions which resulted in more years of legal harassment for him.
This was how Arthur finished one of his emails to me a number of years back, before my incarceration. I include it here as a message of inspiration to all of us.
“Be strong my friend and keep on loving, living, making music and speaking the truth! And may God protect you always. (My theme has always been Psalm 23 since I began this quest and I find great comfort in it. The table is just about prepared!)
In 2021, the Canadian Association to Free Expression (CAFÉ) revived the George Orwell Free Speech Award, started in the 1980s by the late Doug Christie, the “Battling Barrister.” The last one was awarded in 2013, the year one of Canada’s most outstanding defenders of free speech died. In 2021, with the permission of Doug Christie’s widow, we revived the award. Because of the generosity of a special donor, the award is accompanied by a $1,000 prize. It is awarded alternately in Eastern and Western Canada. In 2021, the winner was political prisoner and editor of Your Ward News, Dr. James Sears. The award was presented in Toronto. In 2022, the award winners were brother and sister political prisoners Alfred and Monika Schaefer. The award was presented in Vancouver. This year, the award was presented on October 12 in Toronto to Jurgen Neumann.
The award read: “The Canadian Association for Free Expression Presents The George Orwell Free Speech Award for 2023 For Outstanding Courage In Challenging Censorship and Defending Freedom In Pursuit of the Truth And for Outstanding Talent as a Freedom Communicator & Videographer who has collected and preserved so many vital historical speeches, events, and discoveries online for future generations to Jurgen Neumann. Presented in Toronto, October 12 , 2023 Continuing a Tradition Begun by the late Douglas Hewson Christie, The Battling Barrister & the Canadian Free Speech League.”
Adding his congratulations was Christian Klein, President of the Association of German Expellees and himself a longtime supporter of the late Mr. Zundel’s struggle for free speech and historical truth.
We received a number of congratulatory messages. One came from fellow videographers Diane King and Jim Rizoli: ‘On our last trip to Canada about five years ago or so, one of the most important things we had to accomplish was to meet up with Jurgen Newmann to acquire all of the Ernst Zundel and any other Revisionist videos that he had. This was particularly significant since both Ernst and Ingrid had died and the estate was relegated to Ingrid’s son who would have nothing to do with the revisionist community whatsoever. What Jurgen possessed was an immensely valuable archive of information dealing with the truths about The Third Reich and WWII. Jim spent time with Jurgen acquiring these videos, which we have been able to promote and display on BitChute and other formats and will continue to do so as long as we are able. We could not have accomplished this without Jurgen and his dedication to the truth concerning and on behalf of the Germans in WWII and The Third Reich.”
CAFE Director Paul Fromm Presents 2023 Winner Jurgen Neumann With the George Orwell Free Speech AwardChristian Klein, Committee of German Expellees, Salutes Jurgen Neumann
Monika Schaefer Visited by the B.C. Political Police – the “Hate Squad”
8 September 2023
by Monika Schaefer
The following is the message that I sent out via email late in the evening of the 1st of September, 2023 (for those who have already read this message, please scroll down for my follow-up email to the RCMP “hate squad”).
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friends,
Today I received a visit from the BC Hate Crimes unit [Major Crimes Section] of the RCMP. Two officers drove all the way to my home near McBride BC from the lower mainland, Vancouver area, to come and talk to me. They have received a “complaint”, anonymous of course, about me. The complaint is about the contents of the Truth and Justice for Germans website, that it incites HATE. These two men spent two days travelling (one day here, one day back) to follow up on this complaint. Imagine that. Do you think they might spend their time and money more wisely? Like maybe go after pedophiles or something?
We spent 2-and-a-half hours talking, just outside my door. I think they received quite an education from me. I hope I gave them food for thought, like that perhaps they should seek a career change. An acquaintance happened by at one point, and this was really good, as he contributed very nicely to our conversation, raising some excellent points, for example invoking George Orwell. This acquaintance was unable to stay long, but I was glad for having him witness at least part of the interaction.
One of their purposes was to inform me about the new law in Canada about “holocaust denial”. Do those blots of toner on paper mean that suddenly I will think and say the holocaust did happen after all? Very funny.
I won’t go into detail with this short message to you all, but felt I needed to get the word out that this has happened.
sincerely, Monika Schaefer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Two days later I followed up with the Hate Crimes unit and sent them an email.
Hello Elvis Musinovic and Greg Keall,
I hope you had a good drive back to the lower mainland, with lots of time to reflect on our 2 & ½ hour conversation on Friday, September 1st. I would like to follow up on a couple of points, related to your statement that this is Canada and these things don’t happen that way here, after I told you about the way “speech crimes” are handled in Germany, and also after I mentioned the new Florida law criminalizing pamphleteering.
To the first instance of “this is Canada…”, you’ll remember that I was telling you about the prohibition of evidence in our trial, and then I told you what the judge said at the end of Ernst Zündel’s trial in Germany in 2007. Just to remind you, the judge said to Herr Zündel, “It does not matter if the holocaust happened or not, the only thing that matters here is that it is against the law to dispute it and you broke the law.”
You assured me that this was Canada implying that wouldn’t happen here. I neglected in that moment to tell you what the Canadian judge said to Ernst Zündel at the end of his 1988 trial in Toronto, so I will tell you that now. The judge’s words had essentially the same meaning as the German judge’s words, only expressed slightly differently. The Canadian judge told the court that truth was no defence! Now I do not know the precise words that he used; it may have been closer to this: “Truth shall be no means of defence in this case.”
This is indeed Canada. And that was decades ago. Things have deteriorated since then, in terms of what we are allowed to say and not allowed to say. Political correctness has run amok.
To the second instance of “this is Canada, that does not happen here”, we were talking about the Florida laws criminalizing pamphleteering. There really is not much difference between the Florida situation and BC’s Hate Crime squad making a trip to see me, dedicating 2 officers for 2 days to this task, for an anonymous complaint about a website. Pamphlets in the one case, a website in the other case. Even just the existence of a “Hate Crime” division is extremely Orwellian.
To underline my point, these sources of information, whether pamphlets in Florida or websites in Canada, these sources of information, i.e. words, are being criminalized without anyone disputing the facts that are presented. The makers and enforcers of those blots of toner on paper, also known as “laws”, talk about “inciting hate”, in other words, emotions. Hurting someone’s feelings.
The purpose of our Truth and Justice for Germans website is to enlighten the reader and to tell the truth about Germany, after Germany has been much maligned for decades by the use of atrocity propaganda, admitted to be lies by the British Chief of ‘Black propaganda’ Sefton Delmer. Here is what Delmer said after the German surrender, in 1945, in conversation with German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm:
“Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we’re only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final.
“Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
I would encourage you to read and reread that quote many times, to fully grasp what is being said there. It is a clear admission of lies. “Atrocity propaganda is how we won…. we will continue… we will escalate….” and then that final statement is really quite astonishing in its revelation, “Re-education needs careful tending..” (like with endless Hollywood films, and mandatory holocaust education). “Even one moment of negligence…” (like if we don’t crack down on people who are starting to figure things out), “…and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
Indeed, the truth is indestructible. No amount of toner on paper will change the facts about what actually happened or did not happen during WW2. You can jail the entire population of Canada over this if you want, and that would still not change the facts about what happened in the past. The truth is the truth is the truth, and ultimately, the truth always wins. I am happy to be on the winning side.
Friends: Today I received a visit from the BC Hate Crime Unit of the RCMP. Two officers drove all the way to my home near McBride BC from the lower mainland, Vancouver area, to come and talk to me. They have received a “complaint”, anonymous of course, about me. The complaint is about the contents of the Truth and Justice for Germans website, (truthandjusticeforgermans.com), that it incites HATE. These two men spent two days travelling (one day here, one day back) to follow up on this complaint. Imagine that. Do you think they might spend their time and money more wisely? Like maybe go after pedophiles or something?
We spent 2 and a half hours talking, just outside my door. I think they received quite an education from me. I hope I gave them food for thought, like that perhaps they should seek a career change. An acquaintance happened by at one point, and this was really good, as he contributed very nicely to our conversation, raising some excellent points, for example invoking George Orwell. This acquaintance was unable to stay long, but I was glad for having him witness at least part of the interaction.
One of their purposes was to inform me about the new law in Canada about holocaust denial. Do those blots of toner on paper mean that suddenly I will think and say the holocaust did happen after all? Very funny. I won’t go into detail with this short message to you all, but felt I needed to get the word out that this has happened. SIncerely, Monika
Alfred phoned me this morning from his landline to tell me the latest. The thugs in uniform came en masse at 6 am his time today, ding-dong-ding-dong-ding-dong-ding-dong!!! so, his wife opened up and let them in. Good thing too or they would have busted down the door to the whole building (others live in the same building too). Alfred has proof of that because he overheard one of them reporting back to headquarters that they “did not have to resort to force to enter”. So, these uniformed thugs raided his home once again, stole all his electronic equipment, every last bit of it including his cell phone, took Alfred to the police station in Starnberg, did whatever they do there, and released him.
In his usual fighting spirit, Alfred lectured them non-stop, and the last thing he said to the police chief is “I’d rather be DEAD than be doing what you are doing now!”
He says they were “polite”, but of course showed zero response to his talking at them. His wife heard them commenting on their way out the door how neat and tidy and clean their place was. The normal conditions of the past (neat and clean and tidy German homes) are evidently becoming a thing of the past, according to these guys’ experience.
Ursula Haverbeck Ordered Back to Prison – and her Rebuttal to this Order
13 October 2022
by Monika Schaefer
Ursula Haverbeck, born on November 8, 1928, has been told she must turn herself in to the prison within two weeks of having received the order, to serve her one-year sentence. This would mean presenting herself at the gate by October 25, 2022. The nearly 94-year-old German woman is guilty of none other than asking inconvenient questions about “the Holocaust” and where those alleged murders took place. After years of asking questions and never receiving answers, she drew “politically incorrect” conclusions.
With the help of an online translator and a few of my own corrections to it, this is my best effort to present an English version of her letter which she submitted to the court authorities. Frau Haverbeck’s original letter in German follows the English version. If bilingual readers find errors in interpretation, please put those in the comments.
It is simply astonishing with what chutzpah the so-called “justice” system in Germany operates, in order to keep the official narrative going. Someone – I wonder who – must be very afraid to let the truth emerge about what really happened in Germany during that chapter in history commonly referred to as World War Two.
For previous articles about Ursula Haverbeck on my website: please see this and this, both articles from December 2020 and this one from November of 2020 just after she was released from her 2&1/2 years in prison.
Here is the letter from Ursula Haverbeck:
**********************************
District Court Tiergarten 10548 Berlin Business reference (251b Ds) 231 Js 1640/16 (54/16) Objection to your communication of 07.09.2022 Notification to the Regional Court of Berlin
October 11, 2022
Dear Sir or Madam,
The judgment of the District Court Tiergarten of December 4, 2020 cannot be final, as the trial took place without charge. As a defendant, I had no idea what the trial was about. I was released from prison 12 days before the trial, had to find my way around my house, where there was water damage, and only at 4 p.m. the day before the 1st day of the trial (November 17, 2020, 10 a.m.) received the message that I had to attend in Berlin. I arrived in Berlin completely tired out and confused. I also do not have the Charges. That is why I could not prepare. On the 2nd day of the trial, the judge told me that I did not have to appear on the 3rd date on December 4, 2020, as only two witnesses were to be heard. On December 4, 2020, however, these witnesses were not heard (although present), but in fact a verdict was announced, without my presence and without the Last Word of the Accused. I still do not know the verdict of this case. Could you be so kind as to send me the indictment and verdict? Thank you!
Thus, the judgment of the Regional Court of April 1, 2022 is also invalid, because it states there and in your communication of September 7, 2022 quite clearly that the first judgment of the District Court Tiergarten of October 16, 2017 in conjunction with the second judgment of December 4, 2020 had been combined to a total penalty. Without the second trial at the Tiergarten District Court, the overall sentence would not have been possible. The sentence of six months would have remained or the appeal would have had to be upheld: i.e. no penalty.
How is it at all possible that a “judge at the district court” (cover page of the judgment of April 1, 2022) makes a judgment in the regional court – in a complicated and publicly known case? With this multitude of procedural errors, why was my appeal simply rejected without any justification? Even legal laymen can see that something is wrong.
I request the termination of the proceedings and the annulment of the judgment of the Regional Court of April 1, 2022. I would also like to point out that I am no longer in a position to serve a prison sentence due to my health.
Awaiting an early reply and with kind regards, ~Ursula Haverbeck ******************************** Here is the original letter in German from Ursula Haverbeck to the District Court and to Berlin. ********************************
Amtsgericht Tiergarten 10548 Berlin
Geschäftszeichen (251b Ds) 231 Js 1640/16 (54/16) Einspruch gegen Ihre Mitteilung vom 07.09.2022
Nachrichtlich an das Landgericht Berlin
11.10.2022
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
das Urteil des Amtsgerichts Tiergarten vom 04.12.2020 kann nicht rechtskräftig sein, da der Prozeß ohne Anklage stattfand. Ich hatte als Angeklagte keine Ahnung, worauf sich das Verfahren bezog. Ich bin 12 Tage vor dem Prozeß aus der Haft entlassen worden, mußte mich im meinem Haus zurechtfmden, wo ein Wasserschaden war, und bekam erst am Vortag zum 1. Prozeßtag (17.11.2020, 10 Uhr) um 16 Uhr die Mitteilung, daß ich mich in Berlin einzufinden hätte. Ich kam völlig übernächtigt in Berlin an und war vollständig verwirrt. Ich habe auch keine Anklage. Daher konnte ich mich auch nicht vorbereiten. Am 2. Prozeßtag sagte mir der Richter, daß ich zum 3. Termin am 04.12.2020 nicht erscheinen müsste, da nur noch zwei Zeugen zu vernehmen wären. Am 04.12.2020 wurden aber diese Zeugen nicht vernommen (obgleich anwesend), tatsächlich dann aber ein Urteil verkündet, ohne meine Anwesenheit und ohne das letzte Wort der Angeklagten. Ich kenne das Urteil dieses Verfahrens bis heute nicht. Könnten Sie so freundlich sein, mir Anklage und Urteil zuzusenden? Danke!
Damit ist auch das Urteil des Landgerichts vom 01.04.2022 hinfällig, denn es heißt dort und in Ihrer Mitteilung vom 07.09.2022 ganz eindeutig, daß das erste Urteil des Amtsgerichts Tiergarten vom 16.10.2017 in Verbindung mit dem zweiten Urteil vom 04.12.2020 zu einer Gesamtstrafe verbunden worden sei. Ohne das zweite Verfahren am Amtsgericht Tiergarten wäre die Gesamtstrafenbildung gar nicht möglich gewesen. Es wäre bei der Strafe von sechs Monaten geblieben oder es hätte der Berufung statt gegeben werden müssen: keine Strafe.
Wie ist es überhaupt möglich, daß eine ,,Richterin am Amtsgericht” (11. Deckblatt des Urteils vom 01.04.2022) ein Urteil des Landgerichts fällt – in einem komplizierten und öffentlich bekannten Verfahren?
Bei dieser Vielzahl von Verfahrensfehlem: Warum wurde meine Revision einfach verworfen, ohne jede Begründung? Da können selbst juristische Laien erkennen, daß etwas nicht stimmt.
Ich beantrage die Einstellung des Verfahrens und die Aufhebung des Urteils des Landgerichts vom 01.04.2022. Zudem weise ich daraufhin, daß ich mich heute gesundheitlich nicht mehr in der Lage sehe, eine Haftstrafe anzutreten.
(Holocaust skeptic Monika Schaffer) 
