Evan Balgord, A supporter from Ontario, Helmut-Harry Loewen, Maureen Hurley, "Uncooperative Palindrome", Yellow Vests Canada EXPOSED, "No Name", "The ARC of the Moral Universe",
Eric Weiss
There was a time, not long ago, when Arthur Topham claimed that he wasn't an anti-Semite. No, he was merely opposed to Zionism and Zionists. Besides, he couldn't be an anti-Semite since he claimed his wife had Jewish ancestry (though we're not sure that there was anything actually presented to substantiate that claim).
But it looks like any pretext has been dropped. The city has been razed and the lands surrounding it salted. Suffice it to say it's hard to convince anyone that you are not an anti-Semite when you post stuff like this:
Or this:
Man pictured in the link is not Fredrick Toben
Or especially this:
And if there were still any remaining questions, this:
At least he's being a little more honest now, if one wants to give him that much credit.
But then most of our readers didn't need Topham to convince them in the first place of his nature.
This really isn't in any way intended to be a comprehensive article. We just thought we would share some information on the legal front.
First, the deadline for Marc Lemire to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (re: the Federal Court of Appeal's decision) was on April 1. However, word is that he hasn't filed anything and that it appears that he has given up. We suppose he may have forgotten as he has been busy live blogging the most recent Free Dominion defamation suit. On that case we also see that Paulie is shilling but he received a response from one of his Facebook friends who we have discussed in previous posts which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement:
On the same day, Toronto nutter Eric Brazau was convicted for wilfully promoting hatred and for harassing a Muslim family. He was sentenced to 9 months, however as he spent 9 months in pre-trial custody he was ultimately sentenced to time served. In order to protect Brazau's right to free expression the judge refused to ban him from distributing flyers, so we might not be too surprised if we find that him in the news again for similar reasons. We perhaps shouldn't be surprised either that when Brazau was arrested, Ron Banerjee was his wingman.
We also received notice concerning another appeal that is going ahead. Terry Tremaine's appeal is to be heard on May 28 in Regina at the Court House on Victoria Avenue. We actually haven't heard much from Tremaine in a while, and we can't say that we are all that disappointed by this fact.
Finally, two quick updates on Arthur Topham from the horse's mouth.... so to speak:
Topham followed his post on April 8 with the one below posted yesterday:
Something we've noted over the course of this blog's history is the increasing tendency of Paul Fromm (whom we lovingly refer to as Paulie) to move away from the, "genteel bigotry" he had been noted for advocating publicly in the past. He would couch his racism in euphemisms such as immigration reform and free speech advocate. Increasingly over the years his racist positions have manifested as more extreme and vulgar. This can be illustrated by some of his more recent posts on Facebook, from what tickles his funny bone....
“Dear Arthur: I regret to advise that Mr. Christie has been diagnosed with
an advanced form of liver cancer, and has received medical advice that
he cannot practice law any further at the present time. In these
circumstances, it will be necessary for you to seek other counsel as
soon as possible.”
Doug Christie had been rumored to be in poor health for some time now. Specifically, he was believed to have been suffering from prostate cancer. If that's true case, the cancer appears to have spread to his liver. And if he is dropping clients, it leads us to conclude that his long-term prognosis isn't good.
This writer had an uncle who died as a result of liver cancer and, based on that experience, knows that it is a hell of a way to go.
Time will tell how this affects Topham's case moving forward.
The wheels of justice turn slowly. But they do continue to turn in the case of Arthur Topham. BCL recently noted that the Crown is not going to allow Topham to turn the court into a circus by allowing him to use it as a venue to air his antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Also of interest, it appears that the Crown will be using the Noble case (R. V. Noble) as a model for sentencing (here and here). So if convicted, Topham will be looking at 6 months incarceration followed by three years of close supervision.... though we do have to note that Noble repeatedly violated the terms of his release during his three years of close supervision with seeming impunity.
Paulie dutifully shares the views of Topham concerning this bit of news:
Arthur Topham had an arraignment hearing Tuesday where he pleaded not guilty. He is enjoined from contacting Richard Warman and Harry Abrams but otherwise has no restrictions on his use of the Internet. For now at least. A few interesting points that critics of sec. 13 (human rights code) might consider:
1. A sec. 319 (criminal code) charge appears to compel the respondent to attend quite a few hearings, likely more than anything resulting from a sec. 13 complaint.
2. Failure to appear at one of these hearings may very well result in an arrest warrant, unlike a sec. 13 complaint.
Sec. 13 doesn't look so bad after all, eh? We suppose this is yet another case where one should be careful what one wishes for.
Paulie has been dutifully updating everyone about the status of Topham, including re-posting Topham's most recent update on Radical Press. We won't include that part since it's really just echoing what he always writes, however Paulie does include a "forward" which really is a blast from the past:
Not sure of the details, but boneheads are claiming online that Arthur Topham was arrested this past Wednesday:
Arthur Topham, publisher of the Radical Press website, was arrested on
May 16, 2012, at 11:30 am on the Barkerville Highway near Quesnel, B.C.,
put in handcuffs and taken to jail. Apparently, Arthur’s home had been
staked out for quite some time by the RCMP.
Arther Topham expresses his thoughts that his marital relationship with a (nominally) Jewish woman has spoiled his relationship with the managment of Stormfront.org (and the US white supremacist neo-Nazi "mainstream")
BTW his last several postings on 1001 quotes by and about Jews was copied and pasted to radicalpress.com and his yahoo group directly from Stormfront.
In his responses to our side concerning the hate stuff he posts, one of his favourite dodges to date has been that "he can't be accused of being antisemitic, because his wife is Jewish."
I have posted the 1001 quotes by and about Jews on RadicalPress.com should anyone wish to access them there. It's always a good idea to keep more than one copy available anyhow. A strange thing about the site Stormfront is that I once tried to join it last fall and registered there. For my first post I thought I would introduce myself and talk a bit about my complaint case with B'nai Brith. As well I informed the group that I was working with Doug Christie the free speech lawyer as well as Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Paul of course has a regular show on Stormfront.
After posting the piece I naturally expected that I would get at least a couple of welcomes and so on but when I went back to check on the site I was greeted with a window informing me that I had been banned and would not be allowed to post anything further! I was flabbergasted to say the least and figured immediately that it must be some sort of mistake or a computer error. I tried writing to the admin of the site but couldn't get to them. I searched everywhere for some one to explain what had happened but all I got was a message stating that I had been spamming the site and was not allowed to post any longer.
I tried to get Paul Fromm to intervene and find out from the owner of the site (who he knows personally) what was going on but I never heard back from Paul either. Strange indeed seeing as how Paul is one of the intervenors in my complaint case. Later on I asked Paul again and he said he'd definitely try to find out what was going on but again I never heard back.
The only thing I could figure out was that in my bio I mentioned that I was married to a Jewish girl and that was the deciding factor for whoever was moderating the post. Whether that was the case or not I haven't a clue but I still get the same message if I try to logon the site.
Not sure if any members here are members of Stormfront but if they are possibly they know more about the protocols of that site and could suggest some reasonable explanation.
Arthur
That Paulie hasn't responded to Topham is sort of not unexpected. Increasingly, Fromm is considered to be somewhat of an opportunist in the Canadian racist movement who will use people for his own ends.
In this Antizionist Canada Forum posting, Arthur Topham defends himself against having been labelled a Jewish provocateur because he works or has worked in a "Rothchild" gold mine and now again because his wife is Jewish.
Not exactly too surprising that he attracts other paranoic conspiracy types. It's just rather funny when it backfires on him from folks he considers supporters.
...Now, related to this is your thinking that somehow I might be a Jewish agent and that the whole complaint case against me and my website is nothing but a massive Zionist hoax deliberately set up by the Mossad (presumably) in conjunction with the B'nai Brith all in order to create the impression that I'm a victim of censorship when in fact (in your theoretical musings) you perceive it all to be a deception in order to smoke out or reveal anyone who has supported me and thus identify all the real anti-Semites and racists and hatemongers who lurk about on the internet (yourself included). In my private exchanges with you I suggested that you might possibly be growing paranoid for whatever reasons....
Related to the article we published a few days ago:
Conservative Website Hosts Mark and Connie Fournier Win 2009 George Orwell Free Speech Award
VICTORIA, October 10. While many Canadians travelled to see friends and relatives for the Thanksgiving weekend, over 125 free speechers from as far away as Hawaii jammed a hall for food, fellowship and the 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Awards.
This year's recipients were Mark and Connie Fournier, the former owners of [Free Dominion], a conservative website in existance [sic] since 2001. They have the unique distinction of being the victims of no fewer than three defamation suits at the hands of the ultra litigious Richard Warman, the chronic Canadian human rights complaints filer. For the past three years, the Fourniers and many of their posters have fought a staunch battle for free speech and found themselves being spied on by blind Canadian human rights investigator (don't ask how -- we don't know and he won't tell), even before a complaint was filed against their site.
One of their libel suits in currently stalled as the Fournier's are appealing a court decision forcing them to divulge the names of eight John Doe's, or anonymous posters of their website, to Richard Warman. The Fournier's are standing four square for privacy of people on their site. Their lawyer Barbara Kulaszka, calling from Ontario, warned: "This appeal is very important for freedom of speech and people posting anonymously on the Internet." She also praised Marc Lemire for "his tremendous stamina and sacrifice over the past six years to overturn Sec. 13. It always falls to individuals to carry the heavy burden," she said.
Hosted by Douglas Christie and his Canadian Free Speech League, the Orwell dinner featured webmaster Marc Lemire. Marc gave a powerful power point presentation of the struggle against Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and his recent victory, when Member Athanasios Hadjis ruled the Internet cewnsorship section unconstitutional. The CHRC is appealing (seeking judicial review) of this decision. Marc revealed further CHRC dirty tricks, including a cozy relationship with Canada Post which resulted in the closing of at least one person's post office box on nothing more than the allegation that he'd run afoul of Sec. 13.
Mr. Christie warned: "The fight for free speech is not the fight of a generation or even a lifetime."
Also present was webmaster Arthur Topham of Quesnel who is being victimized by Harry Abrams, a Victoria B'nai Brith operative, and B'nai Brith in a Sec. 143 complaint about his criticism of Zionism and Israel. Both the CFSL and CAFE have "interested party" or intervenor status in this upcoming battle,. scheduled to open in Victoria, December 14.
Representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Paul Fromm, the 1994 George Orwell Award winner, explained the travails of math lecturer Terry Tremaine, another Warman victim, who faces a preliminary hearing in Regina, October 19 on Warman-instigation Sec. 319 "hate law" charges about postings Mr. Tremaine made about Jews and national socialism. He was prosecuted under Sec. 13 on another Warman complaint and fined $4,000 and gagged for life (a "cease and desist" order) in 2006. Warman's complaints led to his losing his job at the University of Saskatchewan. CAFE has been raising money for Mr. Tremaine's defence.
We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.
It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.
In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).
Yours truly,
Daniel Poulin Legal Counsel Canadian Human Rights Commission
We haven't spoken about either "Nazi Mom" or "Nazi Dad" in a while, but since "Nazi Mom" was arrested there hasn't been much to talk about. Until......
WINNIPEG - A Manitoba man says he and his wife were legally exercising their freedom of expression when they sent their daughter to school with racial slogans and symbols written on her skin in permanent marker.
The man, who cannot be identified under provincial law, says Manitoba Child and Family Services violated his charter right to free expression when workers seized the girl and a younger brother from the family home last year.
"The state intervened to stop the respondent and his wife from expressing themselves to their children in a certain way and to stop the children from being the recipients of this expression," the man's lawyer, Catherine Dunn, wrote in newly filed court documents.
The case, which has made international headlines since the children were taken last year, is drawing to a close following witness testimony in the spring. Final arguments are scheduled for Sept. 25, and both sides have deposited written submissions with the Court of Queen's Bench.
The government, which is seeking permanent guardianship of the children, argues the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not allow parents to mark their children with controversial slogans.
"It is submitted that an attempt to convey meaning by using another person's body without his or her consent falls outside of the scope of expression that is protected (under the charter)," writes government lawyer Deborah Carlson.
Child welfare workers were called to the girl's elementary school after she showed up one morning with her skin covered in markings. They testified that in subsequent interviews, the girl casually and frequently used racial slurs to describe blacks, Asians, aboriginals and other minorities.
One worker told the court the girl calmly described how black people could be killed with a ball and chain, and that people who are not white should be shipped to other countries.
When investigators visited the family home, they found neo-Nazi paraphernalia. They also testified the couple were poor parents who worked infrequently and neglected the children, leaving their son in filthy diapers and failing to wake up early enough to bring their daughter to school on many occasions.
The racism concerns were only part of the reason for the children being taken, the government says.
"The respondent's charter argument is little more than a red herring, meant to deflect the court's attention from the respondent's inability to adequately parent (the) children," writes Kris Jonovcik, lawyer for Child and Family Services.
The couple, who are now separated, deny being poor parents. They say they taught their children to be proud to be white, but never preached hatred toward other races. They also say they provided the kids with food, shelter and love.
The mother accuses child welfare workers of putting words in her daughter's mouth.
"They intervened in our life based on politics and they heard stories from a ... girl who was probably terrified and who probably still is, and they put horrific words in her mouth," writes the mother. "Our home was by no means perfect ... but our children were never in danger."
The case has seen dramatic twists and turns. The mother, who now lives in another province, did not initially attend court, saying she couldn't afford to. When she eventually showed up, she was arrested on charges of credit-card fraud.
When the father testified, he admitted using Nazi salutes, telling his children that white people should not have children with people from other races, and telling them that non-whites belong in other countries. But he said his beliefs do not amount to racism, and maintained he never preached violence.
So "Nazi Dad" believes that drawing on his step-daughter is a form of free expression protected by the Charter of Rights, does he? Hell, based on that logic he should be able to tattoo his step-daughter on her forehead with a swastika.
We suppose he hasn't really considered his step-daughter's interests? Hey, if he wants to mark himself up in a way that he can only find employment as a carnival sideshow freak (see Robert Reitmeier as an example) that's his business. But if he thinks that the courts will buy this "freedom of expression" argument, well, he makes a bag of hammers look like a Rhodes' Scholar.
And for not preaching violence? Do you really want us to call you on that lie, "stage"?
In other news, looks like the Aryan Guard is misbehaving in the Bridgeland area of Calgary. We received the following report:
I've heard from some people that live in the area that the boneheads hang out at the Seven Eleven on 1st street and the bonehead with that web tattoo on his neck [Robert Reitmeier] was spotted getting off the 9 coming from Bridgeland downtown. Also, at around mid August I heard about a run in with two nazis that resulted in some pushing. And back in June, myself and a few others followed a few boneheads to Bridgeland and witnessed them buy drugs right off memorial drive, right by some transit cops.
Finally, with the recent ruling regarding section 13, Arthur Topham has been getting a little frisky and has been more vociferous in his efforts to have the complaint thrown out. He's even taken to the airwaves. Well, the Internet Radio "airwaves" in any case. Below is an email he sent out to his supporters regarding a recent interview: From: RadicalPress <radical@radicalpress.com> Subject: SEC. 13(1) INTERVIEW WITH PASTOR ELI JAMES & ARTHUR TOPHAM OF RADICALPRESS.COM ON TALKSHOE RADIO 9/09/09 To: "RadicalPress" <radical@radicalpress.com> Received: Sunday, September 13, 2009, 11:40 AM
Below is an interview with myself and Pastor Eli James of the Christian Identity movement in the U.S.A. recorded on the 9th of September, 2009.
The purpose of the interview was to discuss the current sec. 13(1) "hate crimes" laws now playing themselves out in Canada and more specifically the repercussions arising from the recent Hadjis ruling in the Lemire Decision of September 2, 2009. The effects of this landmark decision upon the case of Harry Abrams & the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com was of course a part of the overall discussions as well as the perspective of Pastor Eli as it applied to the Christian Identity movement in the United States and their own struggles to stem a similar attempt by another tentacle of B'nai Brith International – the ADL or Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith in the USA.
Due to a technical problem (I had trouble making a phone connection with Pastor Eli as a result of the phone card I was using) the first 20 minutes or so is taken up with Pastor Eli discussing the issue of freedom of speech connected with comments on an article from the National Post that discussed the Hadjis ruling of Sept. 2.
The full interview runs for over an hour though and highlights some of the similar challenges faced by both our respective countries in terms of fighting this pervasive attempt by the Zionist-Jews, aided and abetted by the powerful Zionist-Christian elements within the states and Canada, to control our basic human right to freedom of speech and freedom of the Internet.
As always feedback is appreciated.
Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,
And who is the good pastor? Why, he's the head honcho of the Church of the Restoration of True Israel, a Christian Identity cult:
Christian Identity is a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles. Adherents believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent, while non-whites are "mud peoples" created before Adam and Eve. Its virulent racist and anti-Semitic beliefs are usually accompanied by extreme anti-government sentiments. Despite its small size, Christian Identity influences virtually all white supremacist and extreme anti-government movements. It has also informed criminal behavior ranging from hate crimes to acts of terrorism.
And Free Dominion, Israel's "best friend in Canada," is championing Mr. Topham? Interesting.
UPDATE: Shall we eat crow? Sure.
It's not 2010 yet, it's 2009. Title changed accordingly.
First, the serious part. Warman vs. Lemire is due out on Wednesday morning and should be on the CHRT website at 9:30 am eastern standard time.
Now, onto Paulie
As some of our reader know, today was the last day for submissions to the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism. The mandate and vision of the coalition can be found on their website, however it can be summed up as an effort to examine and combat the increasing tide of antisemitic propaganda worldwide and in Canada.
Not surprisingly, Paul Fromm and his one-man (mostly) movement doesn't think that antisemitism is really that big a deal so "they" submitted their own recommendation, the first part of which is found below:
Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3 PH: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413
Submission to The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism 440-C Centre Block, House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 Phone: 613-947-2277 Fax: 613-947-2278 Email: info@cpcca.ca\
[This is an executive summary of our position. We have not included footnotes and documentation, which would be included in a more formal submission. This is the thrust of the remarks we would present should we be called to appear at the hearings the Coalition proposes to hold later this year.]
Disband
There are many problems confronting Canadians today. “Anti-Semitism” isn’t one of them. The raison d’etre of the Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism reads, in part: “The extent and severity of antisemitism is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War.”
This is factually false, fearmongering and absolutely ludicrous.
Paulie goes on to reprint the same, tired old antisemitic propaganda concerning Jewish control of the media, culture, etc so we won't bore our dear readers with it since you've all seen and heard it before. He then writes:
As there is virtually no crisis of anti-Semitism, we urge that this Coalition disband as there is no useful work for them to do.
Inter Group Conflict
Having said that Canadians are extremely tolerant and accepting of minorities, especially Jews, there are nonetheless some points of inter group tension in Canada.
1, First, is the correct perception that organized Jewish groups like the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Weisenthal Centre actively lobby to restrict free speech in Canada. [It must be noted that many individual Jews, like Ezra Levant and journalist George Jonas are outspoken opponents of such censorship.]
Going back to the 1930s, the Canadian Jewish Congress persistently lobbied for restrictions on free speech, which eventually saw the light of day in Canadian law as Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, the so-called "hate law." Groups like the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, remain outspoken defenders of the widely discredited Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Internet censorship provisions where truth is no defence, intent is no defence and the threshold is so low that merely criticizing privileged minorities can get the poster into trouble. All three groups intervened in favour of censorship in Ricihard Warman v Marc Lemire, a case wherein Mr. Lemire launched a constitutional challenge against Sec. 13.
Currently, the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and their Victoria operative Harry Abrams have launched a Canadian Human Rights Commission Sec. 13 complaint against Quesnel, BC journalist Arthur Topham and his radicalpress.com. This complaint seeks to make criticism of Israeli policies a discriminatory offence.
Recommendation: It's unhealthy for a group, especially a minority, to be seen trying to take away rights from other people. Organized Jewish groups should adopt a more libertarian approach to free speech and not be seen to be trying to silence critics.
2. Second, perhaps the major factor in intergroup conflict involving Jews is the pernicious and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
There are really two irreconcilable positions. One, is the Zionist position, apparently endorsed by this Coalition. This position holds that large numbers of Jewish foreigners, some claiming a distant ancestral attachment to Palestine, were justified in the 20th century to occupy the land of others; namely, Palestinians, Christian and Moslem. The land of many of these people was seized and they were expelled, many to live for decades in wretched refugee camps. When some of these Palestinians armed and used guerilla warfare tactics (as the Zionists had used in the 1940s) to regain their homeland, they were denounced as terrorists. It is hard to explain to Palestinians why they should have to sacrifice their homeland to outsiders and be second class citizens, if citizens at all, in the land of their birth,.
In the Zionist view, Jews have a right to their homeland in Palestine, Palestinians should meekly accept their dispossession, and neighbouring Arab nations should live in peace with the State of Israel.
There are, of course, many shades of Zionist and anti-Zionist opinion. The Middle East is a snakepit or irreconcilable differences that would test the wisdom of Solomon.
Recommendation: The Coalition cites tensions among Zionist Jews and anti-Zionists, especially on university campuses in Canada. Here, we urge a Canada First approach. The Middle East is not Canada's problem. Both factions, the Zionists and the anti-Zionists, should be encouraged to leave their quarrels in the old country. They are in Canada now and should be loyal to Canada.
Politicians, especially, should not pander to either faction, but should pursue a strict Canada First policy of neutrality: trade with all; aid to none.
Finally, we urge the Coalition to disband as the "problem" it seeks to solve is wildly overblown and the formation of such a Coalition, with much media fanfare, is provocative and offensive. -- Paul Fromm, Director
In other words, there is not antisemitism, but if there is antisemitism, the Jews are at fault.
We here at the ARC Collective especially enjoyed how Paulie believes that his.... er.... we mean CAFE's, submission to the coalition is actually going to be taken seriously as an interested party and not ignored like the wingnut he,... er.... they are. Paulie even made a grand announcement on his Facebook profile:
Right. We're sure that the coalition members have all read your submission and have now been shamed into agreeing with your position Paulie. You and your terrible spelling (you did teach English, didn't you?) have cause them all to acquiesce in the face of the strength of your argument.
Of course, given that this was found a little further down on your Facebook profile, well, we think that it might be hard to take you seriously:
Hey, we had to see this so we think it's only fair that we subject our dear readers to the same pain that we felt. Might we also remind you how Paulie looks without his shirt?
Rawr!
And, if the idea of Paul Fromm pounding some woman from behind isn't foul enough, we know what his wife looks like.
We will not make our dear readers suffer any more by posting her pictures.
So looks like our useless, inconsequential blog that no one reads has caught the attention of Connie and the Free Dominion folks. Again.
And they continue to claim that ARC (fyi, they now refer to as the, "ARC Collective" which makes us sound far cooler that we are and also as if we should have a secret lair in a volcano and a Weather Dominator; we're SOOOO going to start referring the the blog as the ARC Collective now) is synonymous with the ARA despite absolutely no proof to back that claim up, not to mention their claims that we are violent. And of course we've said ourselves that we have no affiliation with the ARA. But, we'll move on for now since there isn't a hell of a lot we can do to convince them otherwise (that and we don't really care much what they've chosen to believe about us). Ms. Fournier did make a request that we thought that we could provide an answer to regarding why Mr. Abrams joined her forum back in 2007. So we decided to try something novel.
We contacted Mr. Abrams and asked a few questions.
Yes, we did a bit of a search online and found his email address. And, kindly, Mr. Abrams responded:
This Connie person is completely hysterical. Anyway, it would be a good idea to get some proper info out there before it gets wildly out of hand with another game of broken telephone across even more blogs...
Connie's big hate on for me stems from when I suggested on the Westernstandard shotgun blog quite some time ago that she wasn't in a good position with Warman and would be well advised to make amends. I think I reminded her that she had repeated Fromm statements found by a judge to be libelous and this exposed herto the same liability. Of course she didn't heed that one and her blog has been pumping out malice and threats against Warman ever since and she's been drowning in legal problems and fundraising . I think I used "Brian Esker" to register at FD when the Warman matter was just getting underway, to express a similar warning, but Connie banned my IP after only a couple of postings if memory serves.
I wouldn't be surprised if Connie wakes up in the middle of the night wondering if "beating up on Warman" was maybe not such a good idea. I suppose that will be one of the questions in her cross examination in a court room one day. Connie's reference to my penis stems (pun intended) from a humourous posting to a yahoo group I did some years ago joking about a nude bicycle riding event. This should be most frightening for her, because it shows I have a sense of humour too....
Another misconception that I would like to eventually see corrected in the public eye is the accusation that we tried to change the complaint after we had filed it. In this thread:
Topham's trusty PR hack fourhorses regurgitates Topham's bizarre assertion that somehow Daniel Poulin had changed the complaint to include "Jews and non-whites" rather than "Jews and citizens of Israel." I believe that Topham misinterpreted this notion from part of the text of one of Daniel's emails as we were corresponding back and forth.
Meanwhile he [Topham] made motions over this twice in attempts to stall or dismiss the complaint. That and his quest for us to supply him with a copy of the Protocols which he has had posted on his own site all along anyway.
Unravelling this is obviously too complicated or subtle a concept for your average FD participant (like Ed Kennedy?) and both were shot down in our most recent interim Tribunal decision so I think we'd best leave it for now....
So there you have it Connie. Hope this helps explain things a bit better for you.
Oh, and further fyi, Daniel Poulin is the counsel for the CHRC while Nancy Lafontant is the registrar for the CHRT. Topham, obviously not a fan of theirs, decides to take a swipe at them as French Canadians:
....we can imagine Kurz saying to his bud Dan in the commissar’s basement, why not just drop it and replace it with “and non-whites”? That oughta fool them, eh? What the hell it’s suppose to mean is irrelevant because both you and I know that our Zionist controlled media isn’t going to give this wacko neo-Nazi shit-disturbing, truth-telling Topham any coverage anyway so we’ll just get rid of any incriminating evidence that could possibly jeopardize our chances of a big conviction and a big bucks, maximum fine. Whatcha think Dan my man?
Dan, being a good and dedicated and highly paid commissar lackey and an unwitting sycophant of Jewish lobbyists such as B’nai Brith and the CJC who control the Harper government and his own tenure, likely considered this option for a few brief moments and then responded to Kurz, “Yes, I tink dat just might work. ‘E’ll spot it for sure but so what. Besides us, ‘eem and da Tribunal, oou we already know wee’ll rubber stamp whatever we do, it wee’ll make our chances of a quick, silent and bloodless lynching virtually 100% assured. So for sure, let’s do dat Marvin. I’ll type eet up right away. What was dat again? “non-white?”
“Yes,” Marvin replies, all the while thinking to himself, “Hopefully he’ll remember it and get the spelling correct.”...
Even as stereotypical represenations of French Canadians go, this one seems a bit overly hamfisted.
Mr. Abrams also pointed out his believe that Free Dominion poster, “fourhorses” is a Topham megaphone who posts whatever Topham sends his way and has some issues with Free Dominion being referred to as a “pro-Israel/Jewish” website: “fourhorses would be happy to have us argue about the Protocols and whether the Holocaust happened for weeks or months…” Mr. Abrams also believes that it's pretty ironic that fourhorses thinks that perhaps Free Dominion has been missing something in thier coverage considering Mr. Abrams belief that fourhorses has been posting most, if not all, of Topham's statements without sorting the reality from the fantasy.
By the way, that reminds us. We also want to address this part of Ms. Fournier's comment:
Ha ha! It really stings that we are calling Old Harry on his Brian Esker-pades. Harry was too clueless to understand the PR implications of announcing that he tried to entrap someone with a fake id. After all of the flak that Warman and the CHRC losers have taken for that, it should have been obvious.
Uhm, where did Mr. Abrams try to entrap Mr. Topham? If one actually reads the content of the exchange between Abrams and Topham, Mr. Abrams was warning Topham that some of his writting was a violation of Canadian laws and suggested that they be removed:
February 12, 2007
Dear Mr. Topham,
I am writing to notify you of unacceptably racist material posted on your website at radicalpress.com
"...Jewish supremacists are poisoning, subverting, perverting, and murdering people of all races. The world is enslaved by their control and their ideologies , with the aid of treasonous gentiles...."
I am quite sure that maligning Jews in this fashion offends section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code, which may be seen here:
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Could you kindly delete this at your nearest convenience, and advise me when this has been effected so that I can point out more articles of a similar nature also for removal.
Failure to do so may result in legal action being taken against you. Thank you for your attention,
Mr. Topham refused the request, so Mr. Abrams and the B'nai Brith initiated proceedings. That, and Abrams was upfront with the CHRC that he had used a pseudonym to contact Topham. So, where is the entrapment exactly?
We've started to follow the strange case of Arthur Topham. A complaint against him and his website, "Radical Press" is currently working it's way through the CHRC and CHRT. On Sunday we published part of his "Statement of Particulars." Today we received a partial copy of the complainant's response by B'nai Brith (we've added some hyperlinks ourselves):
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
This is our reply to Mr. Arthur Topham's response to our Statement of Particulars of March 2009.
Before framing the substance of our response, it bears mentioning at this stage of the proceedings, that to date, nearly all of the communications and correspondences received from Mr. Topham continue to include multiple forms of vituperative racist expression, and not just directed towards Jews, Israelis or the complainants in this action, either.
We must protest Mr. Topham's disgraceful insults, taunts and verbal abuse targeting both Ms. Lafontant and Mr. Poulin for the fact that English is not their first language.
Meanwhile, and as per usual, Mr. Topham's response contains more antisemitic slurs and canards.
Well it looks like Doug Christie hasn't been in the spotlight enough for this weeks so he's now challenged Richard Warman to a debate on freedom of speech and the CHRC. Tomasz Winnicki has posted the challenge on Stormfront and VNN while and Arthur Topham has published it on his website. As one of our friends has noted:
We would also add that such a debate has already occurred, though perhaps not formally. Considering the number of times Mr. Warman's complaints have been upheld by the CHRT and the number of Christie's friends who have found themselves on the loosing side after a tussle with Mr. Warman, we suggest that any apparent necessity for a debate might be moot. We're sure others would argue with that though.
Speaking of Topham, he has submitted a "Statement of Particulars" regarding the complaint against him filed by the B'nai Brith. Now, there's a lot, and we mean A LOT, of crazy, but the following "Remedies Sought" part sort of takes the cake:
The Respondent requests that the complaint be dismissed on the grounds that:
Section 13 of the "Canadian Human Rights Act" is an unconstitutional piece of legislation designed only to benefit one particular group in Canada, that being the Zionist Jews and their foreign lobbyist organizations.
The articles posted on RadicalPress.com do not expose groups to hatred or contempt. They are, in fact, historical, literary and political analyses and opinion.
The Complainants in this case, Harry Abrams and Anita Bromberg, are abusing an intentionally flawed piece of legislation contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act, to wit, Section 13, for political purposes and to vilify and smear both myself, Arthur Topham, and my news site RadicalPress.com.
The organization known as B’nai Brith Canada is a false front organization controlled by B’nai Brith International headquartered in the foreign state of Israel which is a proven subversive organization controlled by Zionist Jews and operating under the guise of a fraternal society and an advocacy group. It has proven connections to the International terrorist organization MOSSAD as well as to its American arm of B’nai Brith International known as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL is also linked to Crime Syndicates throughout the USA and is a proven Terrorist organization also ran out of Israel for the purpose of slandering and silencing critics of Israeli foreign and domestic policies which are, at their basis, proven to be racist, apartheid and supremacist in nature.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission, through its blatant complicity with this foreign lobby group B’nai Brith Canada has discredited itself as a neutral and impartial human rights organization. As such its actions can only be perceived as being detrimental to the democratic rights of the majority of Canadians now enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an abuse of legislation which ostensible was designed to ensure equality of rights for all Canadians not just special interest groups like B’nai Brith Canada. In this case both the Complainants and the Commission are abusing legislation which is allegedly remedial and are using the legislation in an attempt to destroy a perceived political enemy and to silence political opposition to policies not only of the Canadian government but of a foreign state (Israel). Such actions on the part of these two bodies are not only detestible but should be viewed as highly illegal as well, bordering on, if not in fact, commensurate with, treason.
Arthur does crazy almost as well as anyone we've ever met. And we imagine his latest defense of James von Brunn won't do anything to change that perceptions:
On May 10, we posted an article concerning Doug Christie losing his appeal of the Professional Misconduct Ruling that had originally been brought against him by the Law Society of BC (the actual hearing decision can be found here). In a subsequent post, we received a note from a friend intimating that Christie might appeal to the Supreme Court:
Word is that the Lawyer for the Damned is going to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that Societies that regulate the standards of conduct and honesty for lawyers are unconstitutional.
Money's no object.
It turns out that the message sent to us was actually a joke, however, it turns out that the joke might not have been far off from the truth. In his May newsletter to supporters, Christie intimates that he's considering taking the Law Society to the Court of Appeal:
This is the interesting part:
The Law Society has made clear that if Mr. Christie doesnot appeal to the Court of Appeal, they will not claim the $8,000 to $10,000 for the review by the Benchers.
Mr. Christie has prepared a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal where the issues would be decided by a court for the first time. So far Mr. Chris tie has paid $2,500 for the fine and owes $20,000 for costs and if he appeals, he would owe another $8,000 to $10,000 for the review plus an other sum of costs if he was to lose his appeal in the Court of Appeal. Were honour not at stake, the decision would there fore be easy.
Of course, if he were to win on appeal, all costs and fines could be struck down. This difficult decision will have to be made by Friday, May 29th and a filing made. This unfortunately will be done by the time you read this. Your ad vice would be appreciated.
We say go for it Dougie! Fight the man! If you're going to loose, you might as well go down in spectacular fashion.
Actually there's a lot of interesting articles in Dougie's newsletter; it covers the Topham case (where Christie request for intervenor status was first rejected, then later accepted, by the Tribunal), the Lemire case, the somewhat futile efforts of Levant and the speechies in Alberta and the ammendments to the Alberta Human Rights legislation, and a whole bunch of other fun stuff.
