Supreme Court of Canada

Rothstein’s World: Where Intent & Truth No Longer Exist by Bill Whatcott

March 12, 2015 by admin 4 Comments

[Editor’s Note: The following article is an excerpt from a longer posting of Bill Whatcott’s on March 10th, 2015 which is titled, “Whatcott ministry to Canada comes to an end“. Bill has been one Canadian who has displayed the intestinal fortitude that so many Canadians today lack when it comes to standing up for Canada rather than tossing their principles and their integrity into the Zionist ring and only standing up for Israel instead.

Bill’s efforts, when it comes to defending the right to freedom of speech for ALL Canadians have proven effective in other ways. What he has accomplished through his actions is that he exposed the hidden agenda of satanic forces that now control the hidden agenda of Canada’s Supreme Court and he did so by refusing to back down to the endless attacks by the homosexual lobbyists and their willing accomplices the courts themselves. This process of unveiling the agenda of the dark side might not have occurred had Bill Whatcott simply idly stood by like most Canadian “Christians” and kept silent in the face of the obvious injustice and degradation that’s occurring within our legal system and society at large.

Bill’s ministry may have come to an end here in Canada but his legacy of love for Canada and his efforts to save as many children as possible from the hidden scalpel of the abortionists will continue to inspire others just as his Lord and Master Jesus Christ’s example has lived on for over two thousand years.

May God bless him and his family with peace and happiness. He’s sacrificed enough for any man.]

Dear Friends,

My ministry to Canada has come to an end, at least for the foreseeable future. My ministry wrapped up about the way I would have wanted it to. Two days before leaving for Philippines my friend Rev. Gerhard Wilch and I had coffee with a reporter for a large homosexual publication. The reporter prefers to remain unidentified. I shared the Gospel and some apologetics with the reporter, but he was not particularly open to mine and Gerhard’s worldview. Anyways, I gave the reporter my book “Born in a Graveyard” and requested that he share it with other folks who work at his media outlet.

My Dad and I spent some quality time together and I visited a few family members. My Dad and I also had coffee with one of my faithful ex-gay friends, who is also a loyal supporter of my ministry. Me and my ex-gay friend who was redeemed from the transgender and lesbian lifestyle many years ago certainly had an interesting conversation. My dad who is a little more mainstream Canadian than us just sat quietly and listened as we covered our favourite topics about Jesus and the destructive aspects of the homosexual agenda. It is possible as my Dad sat there and listened to us that he just figured me and my choice of friends is nuts.

I spent my final day in Canada putting out the last of my flyers “Imagine Defunding the CBC” around the east end of Vancouver. I was not particularly surprised that most of the responses were negative, however Vancouver’s recipients of my truthful message have been far less vitriolic than the recipients in Kamloops a few days earlier.

After my final truth assault my Dad and I went to Gerhard’s church for a Lenten supper and service. From there my Dad drove me to the airport. Now, I am in the Philippines with my wife.

I have pretty much given the last quarter century of my life to fighting for a Judeo Christian vision for Canada, especially in the areas of life, sexuality and family. I also fought very hard for free speech and religious freedom for social conservative Christians.

While the path I chose was somewhat controversial , devastating to my secular career prospects in Canada, and indeed a path that rendered me a pariah in the eyes of many, I am quite happy with some of what I accomplished. On the abortion front I am very happy there are a number of children alive as a direct result of my graphic abortion sign and sidewalk counseling ministries.

….My efforts in defending Canada against the homosexual onslaught has been less successful in my view, perhaps more costly on a personal level, though these efforts have not been completely in vain.

My fights with the various university campuses that have tried to have me arrested and banned for preaching against homosexuality and abortion have been very successful. I won multiple court cases against the University of Regina and University of Calgary and made my presence known on many other campuses across the country, challenging attempts at censorship on the University of Alberta, University of Saskatchewan, Carlton University and University of British Columbia campuses. As far as I can tell, the courts have affirmed the right to preach, protest and hand out literature on politically incorrect topics such as abortion and homosexuality on university campuses, even if the university administrations are hostile to the message.

On a nationwide level I have certainly had an impact on the course of free speech in Canada, though I can’t really trumpet my contribution as the success I wanted it to be. In October 2011 I appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on charges that I was guilty of “hate speech” for distributing four pamphlets criticizing the promotion of sodomy in our public schools and for criticizing an ad advertising “man seeking boys… for friendship, exchanging video and pics and more….age, race, nationality not so relevant.”

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal imposed a $17,500 fine and lifetime speech ban on me for distributing flyers criticizing the homosexual agenda and the potential pedophile ad. I broke the ruling right away with a new flyer entitled “Sodomites and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission” and appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench for relief.

My lawyer Tom Schuck and I were hoping to have the hate speech provisions of the human rights tribunals ruled unconstitutional. The Court of Queen’s Bench ruled against us, and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in our favour. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and a record number of intervenors, 22 in total, applied to make submissions before the Court. One of the intervenors, my favourite one, Association for Reformed Political Action was rejected.

My lawyer Tom was quite confident we were going to win but in the end the loss was appalling. The ruling from Canada’s Supreme Court was 6-0 in favour of upholding Canada’s hate speech code, and also my conviction for so-called hate speech on two of the four counts. What was most distressing to me was the logic used to uphold my conviction for so-called hate speech. Justice Rothstein wrote for the unanimous court that defendants in hate speech cases could not use intent or truth as a defense. While accurate medical and social statistics on homosexuality were not enough to get me the defendant acquitted, Rothstein and the court decided they didn’t even need truth on their side to render a guilty verdict. Rothstein wrote a “reasonable person” should be able to conclude my speech would prevent sodomites from expressing themselves, prevent them from participating in society, and my speech if not censored would ultimately lead to discrimination and even genocide. Rothstein also falsely asserted that I called all homosexuals pedophiles.

Of course in Rothstein’s world I would not be a reasonable person, but from my vantage point it seemed in the more than 10 years that I delivered my flyers, sodomites did nothing else but express themselves, whether it was marching naked on parade routes, demonizing and destroying the careers and businesses of Christians who disagreed with them, advocating for a lower age of consent, successfully advocating for same sex marriage, or through mostly unchallenged homosexual propaganda in our children’s classrooms and on our televisions.

From 2002 to 2013, I put out more than 500,000 flyers and as far as I could tell I failed spectacularly in preventing sodomites from expressing themselves. As for Rothstein’s worries about my flyers leading to genocide? Aside from the fact I never called for genocide in any of my flyers, the reality is most of secular Canada never heeded my warnings on homosexuality. The reactions to my flyers were (with a few exceptions were I found supporters) mostly indifference or hostility towards me. In my view Rothstein’s fantasies of anti-gay pogroms and genocides starting as a result of my flyers were delusional and it appalls me this reasoning formed the basis of Canada’s law on what Canadians are allowed and not allowed to say.

The Supreme Court attached my flyers to the bottom of their judgment. You can read my flyers (and the entire ruling if you wish) to see that I never called all homosexuals pedophiles, you can see I never called for the genocide of anyone, and you can see for yourself Rothstein’s reasoning that my (and your) speech could be silenced even if there is no evidence of harm, simply because he and his cronies believe they are “reasonable” and they can discern (even without evidence) my speech might lead to harm: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c … 6/index.do

My lawyer Tom pointed out the errors of fact to the Supreme Court (that I called homosexuals pedophiles) after they released their judgment. However, while truth is no defense for defendants like me in hate speech cases, making statements that are demonstrably untrue is no hindrance for Supreme Court judges.

In my view rulings like this one should be grounds for removal from the bench.

In any event, given the Whatcott ruling was based on blatant falsehoods and politically correct fantasies, I did what a “reasonable” Canadian should do. For two years I ignored the ruling, refused to pay the malicious penalties imposed on me and continued to put out truthful flyers on homosexuality just as I did before the ruling.

The Supreme Court made me liable for all the costs incurred by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission even though I had a partial victory. This was a departure from the judicial norm in partial victories where both parties are generally liable for their own costs. A lawyer writing for the National Post commented that the imposition of costs on me was malicious and said had I not appealed the human rights ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada would not have had the opportunity to review the “man seeking boys ads” flyer and find me innocent of so-called hate speech for my flyer exposing those ads.

Having two years of hindsight, I don’t think I would have done anything different in picking my fight with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. I do believe the truth was on my side and way back in 2001 I was correctly concerned the church was losing its ability to express its moral teachings on the homosexual lifestyle in the public square. My flyers were deliberately provocative and in some cases graphic and disturbing. This approach while not overly pastoral was a legitimate approach in my view to challenge increasing censorship and apathy that I perceived was gripping my beloved Canada.

My flyers did succeed in starting debate. Over the years I have even been blessed with developing a few relationships with homosexual activists and their allies. While the flyers were not pastoral and were not intended to be pastoral, I was able to have a number of pastoral conversations with lost souls over the years as a result of my flyers and was even blessed to play a role in leading a few folks to the risen Christ. None of the above was in vain. However, I have to concede defeat in my primary objectives of securing a robust level of free speech for my social conservative brethren and in activating large numbers of Christians to take a public stand against the homosexual agenda.

Anyways, I did the best I could with what I had. As a legacy I have a book published, “Born in a Graveyard” though I am not making any money off it in Canada, it might take off in Poland thanks to the efforts of my friend Pastor Art Pawlowski. The book is a good history of my life and activism, and in my view is a good educational resource on the effects of the culture of death and homosexual activism on true freedom in the west.

It is nice to be in the Philippines with my wife. I really have no idea what I will be doing here. I am heading to a trade school right now to see if I can learn some mechanics. My wife and I are poor as I left Canada with very little. However we have family and God.

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

My new contact info is:

Phone: 63-927-769-6769
e-mail: billwhatcott@gmail.com

Address: Block 12, Lot 5
St. Margaret St, Adelina Homes,
Lipa City, Batangas, Philippines
4217

“In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
1 Peter 3:15

Filed Under: "Hate Propaganda" laws in CCC, "hate speech", Bill Whatcott, Campaign to Silence Arthur Topham, Canada, Canada "Hate Propaganda legislation Sec. 318 - 20, Canada's Homosexual Lobby, Canada's Queer Community, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, CBC, Child Pornography, Child Sex Abuse, Children, Christianity, Christians, Homosexual lobby, National(Zionist)Post, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Section 13/CHR Act, Supreme Court Justice Marshall Rothstein, Supreme Court of Canada, The Holy Bible, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The crisis of access to justice and self-represented litigants — as I see it by Denis Rancourt

September 17, 2014 by admin 1 Comment

The crisis of access to justice and self-represented litigants — as I see it

Denis Rancourt, PhD

There is a crisis of access to justice in Canada. It is a crisis of systemic judicial partiality against ordinary citizens who cannot afford brand-name “justice”.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin frequently warns of a crisis of “access to justice” in Canada. This crisis involves a large and growing number of self-represented litigants who cannot afford lawyer’s fees, which are inflated by corporate clients.

The Facebook group “Canada Court Watch” is focussed on self-represented litigants and has over 4,000 members. Self-represented litigants regularly picket outside courthouses and lawyers offices across the country. Researchers, such as law professor Julie Macfarlane, have described a widespread disillusionment and distrust of the legal establishment by ordinary self-represented litigants from all walks of life.

Beyond what is acknowledged by the chief justice and the legal establishment, there is a widespread conviction among self-represented litigants that the courts are biased against them. I am the coordinator of the Self-Represented Litigant Workgroup of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, and I have experienced this bias directly as a self-represented defendant.

In a single case of alleged defamation for words on a blog, I have been required to go before 17 different judges, at all courts up to the Supreme Court of Canada, in over 30 open court hearings, over more than three years — in the motions, appeals of motions, and case conferences in the action against me. I have prepared thousands of pages of legal documents, and I have been ordered to pay legal costs of the suing party of more than one quarter of a million dollars to date, prior to the trial that is now on-going.

In light of my recent experience as a self-represented litigant, it is difficult for me to believe that the pleas of the chief justice are authentic. I tend to think that the chief justice means only that lawyers should be affordable and available for ordinary persons, and that she wishes that the legal processes were less wasteful. However, access to lawyers alone does not provide access to justice, and neither does strong-handed case management by judges.

I feel like I have seen it all in terms of the behaviour of judges, in terms of the tremendous systemic bias against self-represented litigants, and that is described by legal researchers. This bias exists irrespective of my level of education (PhD) and irrespective of my ability to present an argument (former university professor), and so I believe what I have heard about what it is like for a single parent navigating issues of child custody.

In my case, the potential for systemic bias is increased by the fact that the plaintiff is a high-status lawyer within the legal establishment, and two of the lawyers who oppose me have formerly represented Canadian prime ministers. In addition, the private plaintiff is funded without a spending limit by a non-party using public money, a situation that has been denounced by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (LINK).

At the mandatory mediation I was not allowed an accompanying person (because he was not a lawyer) even though I faced five lawyers on the side suing me. But obvious asymmetries of means are not the only problem.

The evidence for routine judicial bias, as I see it, is overwhelming and includes:

• the trial judge cancelling my main and pleaded defence, off-the-cuff and in the middle of my opening address to the jury

• judges and lawyers disrespectfully referring to me in court as “he”, and discussing me as though I were not present (until this behaviour was denounced on the Ontario Civil Liberties Association website)

• judges’ frequent, repeated, and disorienting interruptions of me in court

• allowing opposing counsel to make repeated and hyperbolic prejudicial comments, despite my objections

• not allowing me time to make my arguments, despite my good preparation and organization

• refusals to hear evidence of misconduct by opposing counsel

• refusing to acknowledge transcript evidence of opposing counsel leading his witnesses in out-of-court examinations

• allowing procedural dirty tricks by the lawyers, such as calling motions on one day’s notice

• constructive barring of my evidence on motions and at trial, using both procedural technicalities and legal abstractions

• allowing the plaintiff to pick and choose which questions to answer in cross-examinations

• orders that I pay outrageously high costs, which in effect punish me for trying to defend myself, despite the fact that I have no money

• orders that I, rather than the opposing party, pay costs even in the cases where I won all or the majority of the points argued in the motions

• disadvantageous deadlines for document submissions and disadvantageous scheduling of court appearances, despite objections with reasons

In fact, there appears to be no limit to what the court thinks it can get away with when dealing with a self-represented litigant.

In my own case, for example, I discovered that a motions judge (in a motion to end the action) had a blatant conflict of interest. In the middle of the proceedings, I learned that he had strong personal, family, emotional, and contractual financial ties to a party intervening for the plaintiff in the case, and also to the law firm representing the party in court. He had not disclosed any of these ties. The judge’s ties made it inconceivable that he would rule against the plaintiff.

When I presented the evidence of the judge’s ties, the judge lost decorum, threatened me with contempt of court (a criminal judgement), and recused himself, but refused to rule on whether there was apparent bias, and continued to release decisions that stand to this day.

I raised the matter through available procedures with three more judges of the Superior Court, three judges of the Court of Appeal, and six judges of the Supreme Court (in two applications for leave to appeal), but all of them refused to allow bias as a ground for appeal.

In my first attempts, I was not even allowed to access the Supreme Court. It is a demonstration of apparent systemic judicial bias at the highest level that the Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to accept my duly prepared application — and then refused to accept my motion to denounce his refusal to accept the application. This was resolved only because the Ontario Civil Liberties Association made a request, directly to the Chief Justice of Canada, that the Registrar’s conduct be investigated.

That whole bias episode, involving 13 judges from three courts, shows the degree to which the entire judicial structure will tolerate a judge’s apparent bias, at least when the bias complaint is brought by a self-represented litigant being sued by prominent members of the legal establishment.

The only remaining remedy in the matter resides in international law. I am preparing a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee for violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees an impartial court to every litigant in signatory countries, including Canada. Few self-represented litigants can defend themselves this effectively, and there are far too few resources among civil rights organizations to address the gargantuan need.

All of this has only been repeated at the trial itself, which started on May 12, 2014, and which is on-going. Prior to trial, I had asked then Regional Senior Judge Charles Hackland (who resigned on May 8, 2014) to name a case judge who had no connection with the University of Ottawa, and I had made a formal motion for the trial judge to recuse himself because of the judge’s shared interests with the University of Ottawa (LINK). None of this mattered and the trial judge refused to recuse himself. This, and the judge’s in-court actions, led to my walking out of the trial, which was reported in the media (LINK1, LINK2).

My case, the ordeals of countless others, and academic research show that there is a systematic bias against self-represented litigants. Such evident, overt, and pervasive bias proves that the judges are not impartial, but rather are significantly influenced by the social status and power of the litigant. Corporate and government litigants know this well, and count on it. It is the elephant in the courtroom for self-represented litigants.

For self-represented litigants the crisis in “access to justice” is really a crisis in access to an impartial court, a court that is not influenced by social status. This crisis will not be solved by increasing access to lawyers and reducing court backlogs. The solution will require that litigants themselves and civil rights organizations insist on and monitor impartiality of the courts.

In my case, high-profile American political activist Cynthia McKinney has started a petition demanding that the chief justices of Canada allow a new trial with a trial judge having no ties to the University of Ottawa — which is funding the lawsuit without a spending limit — and this has been reported in the media (LINK-petition, LINK-media). Only this type of protest-application of the open court principle, in combination with media exposure and civil society association pressures, has any chance of catalyzing a reform in a system that has now degraded itself beyond self-repair.

There is indeed a crisis, and it is of the court’s making. It is a crisis of partiality against ordinary citizens who cannot afford brand-name “justice”.

——-

Professor Rancourt has taken a courageous stand and like myself he needs your help in order to defend himself against all of these spurious charges that have resulted from his expressing his opinions on matters relevant to Canada’s democratic principles. For further information and contact please see:

Email contact: denis.rancourt@gmail.com

Funding campaign

Bio

—-

This article was originally published HERE May 25, 2014

Background Links:

Petition site — Give a Fair Court Hearing to Denis Rancourt

Ontario Civil Liberties Association campaign page

The motions judge’s apparent-bias legal saga

Court documents in my motion for the trial judge to recuse himself

All (most) court-filed documents in my case

Filed Under: Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Cynthia McKinney, Denis G. Rancourt, Editor's Zone, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, Self-represented litigants, Supreme Court of Canada, U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, University of Ottawa, “Canada Court Watch”

Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws by Arthur Topham

March 29, 2014 by admin 5 Comments

Bad Moon Rising:

How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws

Arthur Topham

“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,

I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and

beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,

Shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and

Beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”

~ Jesus Christ, St. Matthew Ch. 7, vs 24 -27

My assertion, as stated in the title to this article, that Canada’s judicial system has been infiltrated and co-opted by foreign Zionist Jew lobby groups operating in Canada since 1919, will automatically be met with a loud hue and cry of “preposterous! outrageous!” followed immediately by much hand-wringing and declamations of “anti-Semitism”,”hate”,”racism” and further punctuated, dramatized and broadcast across the nation via the the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.

So be it. It doesn’t detract one iota from the facts. All such reactionary responses only reinforce the premise of my argument that Canada’s Zionist Jew media cartel is, and always has been, an integral part of their overall plan to formulate and establish Orwellian laws inimical to the rights and freedoms of the people. Frankly stated it’s the modus operandi of these foreign-controlled Jewish lobbies to react precisely in this fashion for that is how they mendaciously twist and stifle debate on any issue of national importance to Canadians; be it our Charter rights or our fundamental right (and responsibility as patriotic protectors of our country) to question the direction of the nation’s foreign policies which, under the current Harper regime, are deliberately replacing the nation’s longstanding principles of common sense and aligning our once relatively respected political ideals with the present agenda of the Zionist Jewish state of Israel, considered by most intelligent people to be the most rogue, racist, supremacist, violent, atheistic and apartheid nation on the face of the planet.

It’s my fervent contention that the template for Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation was, from the start, designed in such a way as to function as a legal shield; a mechanism which the Zionist lobbyists use to defend themselves against any allegations aimed at exposing their covert actions; all of which are meant to benefit their inordinate influence over Canadian politics and the criminal actions of the foreign state of Israel; Harper, of course, being their current Trojan Horse, front man in this deliberate, ongoing, slow motion coup to capture the nation’s political and legal systems.

When we go back in history and retrace the steps that these legal interlopers have taken since the end of World War 2 it’s clearly evident what they’ve been up to, especially in light of the now increasing displeasure that more and more Canadians are showing toward the actions of the Jewish lobbies when it comes to their relentless, telling attacks upon our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which include our fundamental right to freedom of expression as stated in Sec. 2b of the Charter.

For those still unfamiliar with this fundamental right it states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

All that’s required in order to verify this war against our rights and freedoms, including our most basic right of speaking out and expressing our views on issues vital to our national well being, is to delve into any and all of the legal cases over the past forty four years associated with the issue of freedom of expression and one will see immediately that in practically every instance the first special interest lobby group lining up and vying for intervenor status is inevitably a Jewish one. And furthermore, concomitant with their zealousness to intervene is usually the underlying fact that it is they themselves who were instrumental in bringing forth the charges. And if that isn’t the norm then they’re undoubtedly there to make sure that the complainant (usually an agent in one form or another) gets the maximum support of their power and influence in the courts and the media.

The foundation for all of this pretence and deceit was laid at the end of the last world war when the Zionist-controlled U.K. and USA began cranking up their deliberately orchestrated accusations that Hitler and the German military were guilty of having attempted to wipe out the Jews in Europe by gassing millions of them and then cremating the innocent souls in ovens to cover up their horrendously heinous crime. The Nuremberg Trials at the war’s end were the focus of these fantastic claims of willful genocide by gas and fire and the West, still mesmerized by the massive amounts of anti-German hate propaganda which they had been saturated with for the past six years, as well as being shell-shocked from all the fighting, killing, bombing and destruction, fell prey to this massive deception and was unwilling or unable to garner the moral fortitude or financial resources necessary to counter these outrageous lies of the powerful Zionist lobby.

Little did it matter that every confession by the captured German military commanders had been gained by torture. Little did it matter that the majority of those running the trials were of Jewish ethnicity. Little did it matter that laws which had been followed by nations for decades were suddenly revised in secrecy just prior to the war’s end and the former International Geneva protocols cast aside and new standards of jurisprudence abruptly introduced into the equation by Jewish judges and the Zionist forces who had gained firm control of the whole charade. This was the hour that they’d planned for and were awaiting since first declaring war on Germany in 1933 when Hitler and the National Socialist Party gained power through legal, democratic means.

Now that the Allies had gained their victory, the Zionists via subterfuge, deception, political pressure and the willing assistance of their controlled media and Hollywood, were finally in a position to have their long sought “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” footings poured, thus assuring themselves of a firm propaganda foundation for the erection of their fabricated phantasy; one that would then allowing for the rest of the subsequent monkey business of taking over and manipulating national and international laws, all of which was based upon their cunningly crafted pretext for tyranny known as the “Holocaust”.

After that landmark lie was accomplished it was merely a matter of time, patient plodding, and endless, inordinate propaganda and pressure placed upon the rest of the population of the world who had still to accept the “Holocaust” hoax and be subsequently convinced of the dire and urgent necessity for enacting legislation that would make it illegal to promote either “genocide” or “hatred” toward any identifiable group.

In principle (and of course based upon the lie of the “6 Million”) these proposals might have appeared laudable and worthy had the mythical “Holocaust” actually occurred and in that context they would most definitely have been noble pursuits to accomplish but that, unfortunately, wasn’t the reality. Only now that the real history of the last eighty years is finally coming to light, thanks to the free and open Internet, are we finally getting to see the original, unadulterated script as it was so cleverly designed by the Zionist forces of the day; a program of diabolic, Machiavellian political pragmatism designed to destroy democratic institutions and replace them with a Zionist-based illuminist, occult vision of a macabre New World Order where they, and only they, would hold all the power and control over the world’s people along with all the resources of the planet.

Such was the set and setting here in Canada when the Jewish lobbies started their underhanded campaign to create “Hate Propaganda” laws that would be and are being used against Canadian citizens today.

One might legitimately say that these deceptive measures to control freedom of speech actually began even before the commencement of WW2. After Hitler and the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933 the Jews in Canada were already growing fearful that Canadians might begin to believe what Germany was saying about the International financiers and the Jewish control of their own beleaguered nation and so in the province of Manitoba, (of all places) the government passed a statute to combat what was apparently perceived to be a “rise in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda”. The premise of which (The Libel Act, R.S.M. 1913, c. 113, s. 13A (added S.M. 1934, c. 23, s. 1) was later to become The Defamation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. D20, s. 19(1) and was in all likelihood the first volley launched against freedom of expression.

Up until 1970 Section 181 of the Criminal Code, which reads: “Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.” was the only provision in the Code even remotely connected to the offence of group defamation but it didn’t, at the time, specifically make mention of “hate propaganda”.

As stated above, when WW2 ended the work of the Zionist lobbyists began in earnest when their “Holocaust” card began appearing as the foundational pretext to any and all discussions surrounding “human rights” and “discrimination”. The first step in the direction of censorship was the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 with its references to “hate propaganda” and by 1953 we find that the Canadian Jewish Congress was already diligently pursuing efforts toward this end with their attempt to insert anti-hate propaganda provisions into the Criminal Code which was being revised in that same year.

Their deceptive labours eventually bore fruit when the lobby was finally able to convince Canada’s federal Justice Minister Guy Favreau in 1965 to appoint a special (interest) committee to look into the purported “problems” connected with the dissemination of “hate propaganda” in Canada.

Surprisingly (not) what became known as “The Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada” and later abbreviated (for propaganda purposes) to the “Cohen Committee” was headed by a Jewish lawyer, Dean Maxwell Cohen, Q.C., Dean of the Faculty of Law, McGill University. While not all members of the committee were Jewish there was one other notable lawyer instrumental in aiding the Jewish lobby in their relentless quest for censorship laws. This was none other than Professor Pierre E. Trudeau, Associate Professor of Law, University of Montreal, soon to become Canada’s Prime Minister.

The committee studied the alleged “problem” from January 29th to November 10th, 1965 and their conclusions called for new legislation that ultimately affected the Post Office Act, the Customs Act, and most critically in today’s context, what is now Section 319 of the Criminal Code, the very same section that’s being used to shut down RadicalPress.com and threaten its Publisher and Editor (me) with a possible two year jail sentence for having expressed opinions and facts on Zionism, Jews and the state of Israel.

My case is designed to be the test case for the Jewish lobbyists working in Canada. Should they win and find me guilty under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada then that precedent will undoubtedly unleash a flood of subsequent attacks upon the rest of the bloggers and publishers and writers and artists living in Canada who also see an imminent threat to their freedom of expression encapsulated in this draconian, Marxist legislation designed with malicious forethought to censor truth and stymie any and all attempts to achieve and maintain justice and freedom of speech in Canada.

Conclusion:

Just as the great parable of Jesus Christ regarding the foolish man who built his house upon the sand has come down through history so too has the foolish attempt by those who call themselves Jews to build an occult house of invisible governance upon the sands of deception, usury and an insatiable lust for power and control over their fellow mortals.

Now that the rains of the peoples’ outrageous indignation and the floods of perceived injustice and repression of personal freedoms and the winds of Truth and Freedom are beginning to beat with greater and greater intensity upon the once mighty and powerful House of Zion (thanks to the miracle of the Internet), the underpinnings of this deceptive, age-old hoax are giving way and, should the people continue to unite and persevere in their staunch resistance to and abolition of all the “Hate Propaganda” laws now being used against them then soon, and with great relief and thankfulness, will come the fall of this House of Horrors and a new beginning for those who want only peace and love and justice and brotherhood to reign supreme.

—-

Filed Under: "Hate Propaganda" Laws, "hate speech", "Jewish" holocaust, 'state' of Israel, 6 Million Myth, anti-Semitism, Arthur Topham - Pub/Ed The Radical Press, Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Atheism, B'nai Brith Canada, B.C. Politics, B.C. Supreme Court, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Jewish Lobby, Canadian Judicial System, Christianity, Cohen Commission Report, Conservative Party of Canada, Conspiracy, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Dresden Holocaust, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom to Protest, Gaza, Geneva Accord, Germany, Germany Must Perish!, Hate Crime laws, Holocaust Lie, HOLODOMOR, Human Rights, Internet Freedom, Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Israelli Apartheid, Jesus Christ, Jewish Banking Cartel, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Crime, Jewish Freemasons, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Hatred toward Germany, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Jewish Holocaust Lie, Jewish Influence, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish power, Jewish Racism, Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, Jewish Supremacism, Jewish Supreme Court Justices, Jewish Terrorists, Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution, Judaism, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Marxism, Middle East, Mind-control, Mossad, National Socialist Party of Germany, New World Order, Nuremberg Trial, Orwell, Palestine, Peace & Love, Pharisaic Judaism, PM Stephen Harper, Political Zionism, RadicalPress.com, RadicalPress.com Sec. 319(2) Court Case, RCMP Corruption, Rothschild Zionist Criminal Cartel, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", Six Million Myth, Supreme Court of Canada, the "Holocaust", The Babylonian Talmud, The Controversy of Zion, The Illuminati, The Jewish Problem, The Jewish Question, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, United Nations, Zionism, Zionist Controlled West, Zionist Jews in Russia, Zionists

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #18 March 14th, 2014

March 14, 2014 by admin 4 Comments

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #18
March 14th, 2014

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

The battle to retain the right of Canadians to freedom of speech has take a further step forward.

On Thursday, March 13th, 2014 my dear wife Shastah and I attended the final session of the Preliminary Inquiry in the Quesnel courthouse. We were accompanied by Mr. Paul Fromm the Director for the Canadian Association for Freedom of Speech (CAFE) who had traveled out to B.C. from Ontario to witness how the British Columbia justice system treats those willing to stand up to Canada’s repressive, unconstitutional “Hate Propaganda” laws contained in the Canadian Criminal Code.

I was there to cross examine Cst. Normandie Levas one of the two British Columbia Hate Crime Team members who were involved in orchestrating my arrest and incarceration back on May 16th, 2012 on the fabricated sec. 319(2) criminal charge of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group'”. Cst. Levas was the RCMP officer who had sworn off on (signed her name to) what is, in legal terminology referred to as the “Information to Obtain” (ITO) and in my case related to the RCMP’s application for a search warrant which they required in order to enter my home in search of any instruments of destruction that I purportedly had used in committing this most heinous crime of criticizing the Zionist Jews and the state of Israel.

In this instance it specifically referred to the following items: Computer(s), laptop, Smartphone or device that accesses the internet and is capable of uploading and downloading information, and all their peripheral equipment, computer discs, drives or storage devices which could be used to store information plus billing records, receipts and correspondence with ABC Communications and Netfirms.com and any correspondence in the form of mail or physical documents directly related to Radical Press.

Readers may recall that back on January 22nd, 2014 I had cross examined Cst. Levas’s partner in crime Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the British Columbia Hate Crime Team (BCHCT) on the matter of my arrest and incarceration and at that time Cst. Levas was unavailable for cross examination so this was the date set for that matter to commence.

Cst. Levas didn’t appear in person in the Quesnel court room; instead, I had agreed with Crown that she could appear on video from the Surrey, B.C. precinct where she normally works out of, thus saving taxpayers the additional cost of having to fly her up to Quesnel and back. Unlike the January 22nd session with Det. Wilson the court room wasn’t burdened with a throng of other cases and by 10 a.m. we had established video contact with Cst. Levas and I was able to proceed in my questioning.

The main thrust of my cross examination of Cst. Levas was questioning the validity of the search warrant which Cst. Levas had sworn to in order to bring into some form of reasonable relief the legal grounds upon which the RCMP had hinged their arguments for what was basically an outright infringement of my constitutional rights as contained in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Canada’s sacrosanct legal document upon which all Canadians depend for their basic, fundamental freedoms. Below are the Articles contained in the Charter which are relevant to my criminal charge under Sec. 319(2):

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Under what are called “Legal Rights” we have, for the protection of all Canadians, the following relevant rights which specifically pertain to my case:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

With respect to search and seizure of one’s property:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

In Article 11 of the Charter with respect to proceedings in criminal and penal matters, all Canadians are guaranteed that:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;

As well as the above Charter rights and freedoms I would also add the following right with respect to treatment or punishment:
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Unlike my previous Legal Update #17 where I discussed my cross examination of Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the lead investigator in the attack upon my Charter rights I won’t go into all the details of the questions which I asked Cst. Levas. I will explain why.

The bulk of the 56 page Search Warrant Application aka Information to Obtain or ITO was, for the most part, information which had been compiled by Det. Wilson. Cst. Levas, at the outset of her testimony basically stated that she “believed” and was relying upon all of the information that she had been given by her superior officer Det. Wilson which included personal opinion regarding the posts on the RadicalPress.com website which Wilson deemed to be in contravention of Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code. This “personal opinion” also appeared to encompass any and all of the spurious, and at times, astounding allegations which had been brought forth by the two complainants in the case, Agent Z, representative for the secretive masonic order of B’nai Brith Canada and Lawyer X who for the past fifteen years or longer has been at the front and center of all the controversial Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaints that were filed against Canadians under the now repealed legislation formerly contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

On top of what Cst. Levas “believed” of Det. Wilson’s data she also stated that she derived her information from her own personal investigations into the various postings on the website which she had read and concluded were all fine and relevant examples of “hate propaganda” directed toward the “Jewish population”.

The main reason therefore for not dwelling too much on her testimony is that whenever asked about this point or that Cst. Levas would defer to her basic statements and simply say that she “believed” what Det. Wilson (or any of the others) had said and because the question made reference to statements other than what she personally had made she really couldn’t comment any further on the matter.

Ultimately it all came down to personal beliefs and personal opinions when judging the validity of the content on RadicalPress.com and in either case both of these two officers of B.C.’s Hate Crime Team were not experts in any sense of the word and each officer turned out to be unqualified to judge the contents of the articles and online books now present on RadicalPress.com.

This fact became glaringly obvious when I asked Cst. Levas what her credentials were in terms of her level of education that would constitute a justification for her determining what I had posted on RadicalPress.com was in fact “hate propaganda”. She replied that she held a college degree in… dentistry and was a qualified dental assistant!

It was then that I fully realized the absurdity of the whole “hate crime” legislation in Canada and the ludicrous,farcical nature of these “Hate Crime Teams” that the Zionist Jews have created throughout Canada’s various provinces, all designed to perform the same deceptive duties as their former counterpart in the Soviet Union, the “Cheka” (secret police composed mainly of Jews) once did, wherein they would, upon the flimsiest of allegations, arrest and jail anyone who displayed any form of dissenting opinion and then drag the victim before their “Show Trial” courts and proceed, under colour of their Bolshevik Marxist dictatorship laws, to offer the public the pretence of “justice” before dragging their victim back into the dungeon and putting a bullet in the back of their head.

It was also at this point that I knew with unquestionable certitude that henceforth it was going to be like “pulling teeth” to “extract” any logically discernible responses from Cst. Normandie Levas regarding the contents on RadicalPress.com.

The issue of my satirical article “Israel Must Perish!” became in many respects the most controversial item for discussion throughout the cross examination. Both Det. Wilson and Cst. Levas have now undeniably placed all their eggs in that one basket of legal buffoonery wherein they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the article is in fact a satire and, like the two compromised complainants in the case, are zealously and adamantly arguing that my intent in composing the article was simply to further inflame and perpetuate the historic and unjustified persecution and hatred of this glorious race of self-chosen superior mortals we know as the “Jewish population”.

The desperation and determination by which these two thought police cling like rats to a sinking ship to their feigned position finally became apparent at the end of my cross examination when Judge Morgan, after recessing himself from the court room for fifteen minutes, returned to read out his judgement and decision.

In his pithy summation of reasons for why he felt that the Crown had met the basic threshold of the “Shephard Test” (an American court case used in Canadian jurisprudence to justify proceeding to trial) Judge Morgan made reference to my article “Israel Must Perish!” and proceeded to read out a couple of juicy statements which I had included in the satire, verbatim statements wilfully composed and published by the Jewish author Theodore N. Kaufman in his 1941 edition of the book Germany Must Perish! It was Judge Morgan’s opinion that these statements, which he read out to the court as if they were my words, were written in order to accomplish just those ends which the B.C. Hate Crime Team and the two complainants have been attempting to convince the court were my primary motive for writing the satire which they refuse to accept for what it is.

Thus, the Preliminary Inquiry ended and the decision to move the case on to trial in Supreme Court began. Judge Morgan then set the date of March 31st, 2014 for me to appear in Supreme Court for what is called my “first appearance” and that concluded the matter.

But of course it didn’t conclude the efforts on the part of Crown to continue in their relentless pursuit of additional harassment of myself and my ability to keep publishing on RadicalPress.com. When the morning session first got underway Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston handed me a sheet of paper with the following information written on it:

Requested terms:

1) You shall not post any information on any internet site that can be read by members of the general public.

2) You shall not operate, post to, manage or allow anyone to operate, post to or manage any internet site owned by you that can be accessed by the general public.

3) You shall make RadicalPress.com unavailable to the general public. You shall not be in breach of this condition if you place a default page on RadicalPress.com, if the wording of the default page has been previously approved by this Court.

These draconian bail conditions which the Crown is now hoping to gain the approval of from Judge Morgan were the result of the Crown having charged me a second time with the same Sec. 319(2) offence back in January of 2014 claiming that I was still posting “hate propaganda” on RadicalPress.com since the time of my arrest in May of 2012. It was irrelevant to Crown that for the past 17 months of publishing that no one had complained about the content on the website just as it was irrelevant that since 2006 no one had complained about the content other than the two Zionist operatives who began this charade of justice back in 2007. When Crown brought down this second synonymous indictment against me they informed the court that they would be applying for a bail hearing following the Preliminary Inquiry. It was my impression that this would commence on April 2nd but it suddenly became apparent that Crown was hot to trot to have Judge Morgan impose these Orwellian, unconstitutional restrictions on my Charter rights immediately upon completion of the Preliminary Inquiry so that when I left the courtroom and walked out the door I’d be left bereft of any means of communicating with supporters and readers and faced with the prospect of having to defend myself without being able to post anything on the internet.

Fortunately for me and for Canadian justice, Judge Morgan declined to immediately grant Crown their bail hearing. He read his copy of the “Requested terms” which Crown gave him and said point blank to Crown that it appeared they simply wanted to shut down RadicalPress.com. Given the fact that we had just completed the Preliminary Inquiry he felt it was too soon to suddenly begin a bail hearing so he advised Crown and myself that I was to return on March 18, 2014 at 1:30 to fix a date for it. That will at least give me some time to prepare to argue against these proposed censorship conditions that fly in the face of everything that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands for.

And so the show begins with a trial by judge and jury to determine the fate of RadicalPress.com and the right to freedom of expression and speech in Canada. Stay tuned folks! It’s bound to be of interest to all who value these fundamental, God-given rights.

——-

Filed Under: Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Arthur Topham - Pub/Ed The Radical Press, Attorney General of B.C., B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Canadian Association for Freedom of Speech (CAFE), Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Judicial System, Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Cst. Normandie Levas, Douglas Reed, Editor's Zone, Germany Must Perish!, Honourable Judge Morgan, Israel Must Perish! (satire/parody), Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Israelli Apartheid, Jewish Hatred toward Germany, Jewish Holocaust Lie, Jewish power, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Paul Fromm (CAFE), Political Zionism, Radical Press Legal Update, RadicalPress.com, RadicalPress.com Sec. 319(2) Court Case, Supreme Court of Canada, The Controversy of Zion, the Crown, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17

January 27, 2014 by admin 1 Comment

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 – specifically the Jewish lobby organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada (BBC), the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC) and the most recently formed Jewish umbrella organization, the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) – 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.

When the Zionist’s previous weapon of mass deception/censorship, i.e., Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada back on June 25th, 2012 there was already a frantic movement afoot to find some new legal avenue with which to threaten and intimidate Canadian citizens into fearing to publish and express on the Internet their opinions or ideas or the opinions and ideas of others on any matter pertaining to this particular element within Canadian society (the Jews comprising less that 2% of Canada’s total population). Having their tentacles firmly entwined throughout the federal judiciary the Jewish lobbyists, led by the likes of former Liberal Attorney General of Canada and staunch Zionist Irwin Cotler, were working overtime behind the scenes in order to formulate new policies within the Harper Conservative government; measures that would ensure that their Number One weapon – HATE – would continue to find a place of honour and litigation within Canada’s legal system and be available to this minority group to use in their ongoing promotion and defence of the Apartheid, Racist, Supremacist State of Israel and the promulgation of its contemptible political ideology known as Zionism.

Until Canada is free of all this Zionist Jew 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 Agent Z) and Ricardo Warmouse, 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 illegal 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 the illegal 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 Ricardo Warmouse 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 Warmouse 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 apartheid 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 Warmouse 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 Agent Z) 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, Agent Z and Ricardo Warmouse 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 two pro-Zionist agents of the Zionist Jew lobby group B’nai Brith Canada (one of them an ethnic, duel-citizen Zionist Jew and the other a gentile lawyer who made it his business to lay “hate crime” complaints and in many cases profit monetarily from Sec. 13(1) convictions) 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 Warmouse 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…”