RadicalPress.com | AAA+ Replica Watches | Designer Replica Rolex Diamond Watches 2023

The power of lies, deceptions and disinformation as Americans pay the price of collective stupidity.
‘You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…’ Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache
6JewMedia photo sixjews_zpsa28028c4.png
Facts of Jewish Media Control
The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney Empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a ‘control freak’, includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television), its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies. As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers. When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, under Eisner, the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and violence. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies. ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, a Jew.
This corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns eleven AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates. Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1994. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications, Chilton Publications, and the Diversified Publishing Group. Time Warner, Inc, is the second of the international media leviathans.
The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO is the country’s largest pay-TV cable network. Warner Music is by far the world’s largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersch is president of Warnervision, Warner Music’s video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are Jews. Warner Music was an early promoter of ‘gangsta rap.’ Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites. In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing. Time Warner’s publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).
When Ted Turner, a Gentile, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley (real name Palinsky, a Jew) and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.
To block Turner’s bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a ‘friendly’ takeover of the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin’s Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. Viacom, Inc, headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew, is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books.
It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. Viacom’s chief claim to fame, however, is as the world’s largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the younger television audience. With the top three, and by far the largest, media companies in the hand of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part. What about the other big media companies? Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox Television and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chermin, who heads Murdoch’s film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew. Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division. Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as ‘the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States,’ is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew. The best known of the smaller media companies, Dreamworks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair.
Dream Works was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress. It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century.
This is still the case today. Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above-Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram)-accounted for 74 per cent of the total box-office receipts for the first eight months of 1995. The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson, CBS first by William Paley and then by Lawrence Tisch, and NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert. Over periods of several decades, these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong. As noted, ABC is part of Eisner’s Disney Company, and the executive producers of ABC’s news programs are all Jews: Victor Neufeld (20-20), Bob Reichbloom (Good Morning America), and Rick Kaplan (World News Tonight). CBS was recently purchased by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Lawrence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew. At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline).
The Print Media After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,500 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against Jewish control and distortion. However, this is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of our interests than a casual observer would think.
The days when most cities and even towns had several independently owned newspapers published by local people with close ties to the community are gone. Today, most ‘local’ newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or ever thousands of miles away. The fact is that only about 25 per cent of the country’s 1,500 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest depend on these few for all of their national and international news. The Newhouse empire of Jewish brothers Samuel and Donald Newhouse provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America’s daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip.
The Newhouses own 26 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation’s largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country’s largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madmoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.
This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenuenot the small change collected from a newspaper’s readersthat largely pays the editor’s salary and yields the owner’s profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the 20th century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapersprimarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants. Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Three Jewish Newspapers
The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America’s newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation’s three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America’s financial and political capitals, are the newspapers which set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn’t, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it, and all three newspapers are in Jewish hands. The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld.
Both of the latter are also Jews. The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe; twelve magazines, including McCall’s and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its ‘leaks’ throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.
The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John McLean, and later inherited by Edward McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier. The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co.
In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation’s largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Most of New York’s other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News is owned by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm.
Other Mass Media
The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subidiary of Time Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew. Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham.
Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million. U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by Mortimer Zuckerman, a Jew. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country. Among the giant book-publishing conglomerates, the situation is also Jewish. Three of the six largest book publishers in the U.S., according to Publisher’s Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Schuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown). Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children’s books, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.
The Effect of Jewish Control of the Media
These are the facts of Jewish media control in America. Anyone willing to spend several hours in a large library can verify their accuracy. I hope that these facts are disturbing to you, to say the least. Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power? Certainly, not and allowing a people with beliefs such as expressed in the Talmud, to determine what we get to read or watch in effect gives this small minority the power to mold our minds to suit their own Talmudic interests, interests which as we have demonstrated are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people. By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media, we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by their parents, their schools, or any other influence.

Dear Arthur your tribute is very moving. There is no doubt that Doug Christie was Divinely inspired and chosen for his gifted role in defending the ideals and high principles that our people have stood for over the centuries. Kipling’s poem ‘If’ also applies. He stood proudly head and shoulders above his contemptible, anti-Christian, anti-Canadian detractors and enemies, and will remain forever a beacon of truth and freedom of expression. I called him BraveHeart since he demonstrated all the traits of character that made the like-minded William Wallace a super-hero. He deserves wide recognition for his patriotism and sacrifice. I asked Peter Milliken, former Speaker of the House of Commons, to nominate him for the Order of Canada (see below) but the award cannot be made posthumously, so we shall have to find some other medium. Little praise can be expected from the Mainline Media, and even less from self-serving politicians, unfortunately.
Having known and admired Doug for many years, I am totally devastated by his sudden departure. We must now redouble our efforts, in his honour.
Ian
—
March 1, 2013
Hon. Peter Milliken,
Queen’s University,
Kingston, ON

Dear Peter Milliken,
Nomination of Doug Christie for Order of Canada award
We met at the Macdonald Laurier soiree where I boasted that I had graduated from Queen’s (Arts ’49 Econ) before you were born! You said by ’49 you had been around already for 3 years. You were much in demand at the soiree so we had little time to talk. Otherwise, I would have told you that I am the patriarch of a Queen’s family, with 2 daughters (one of whom graduated in Mining Engineering), a son-in-law, one granddaughter (in Aeronautical Engineering with scholarships from Air Canada and National Defence), a second granddaughter pending, and a sister and brother-in-law, Arts and Engineering.
During my years at Queen’s I was Manager of the Brass and Pipe bands and had them fitted out for the first time with authentic Highland uniforms, raising the funds from soft-drink and cloakroom concessions. I also led a Swing Band and played many dates in Grant Hall and the gymnasium, helping to pay my way.
After Queen’s I took an MA from Toronto and joined the Foreign Service, becoming, in rather short order, by far the most successful Trade Commissioner in the history of the Service. Eventually, after six foreign postings I became head of export development policy planning for the Department. I was told if I ‘played the game’, I could go ‘right to the top’.
One of my prime policy proposals (1969) was the cultivation of markets in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East, with all of which I was intimately familiar, having spent 2 years there as Commercial Counselor, based in Beirut. The policy paper was not well received. The Deputy Minister told me privately that Arab markets were ’not a popular cause’, that the issue was ‘politically sensitive’, and that I must never mention the word ‘Arab’ again. When I protested that the immense prospective benefits to Canada could not be ignored, he said if I wrote on the subject again I would ‘suffer the consequences’. I said I had taken the Oath of Allegiance and would do as my conscience and mandate dictated.
I then produced a second policy paper, more forthright than the first, and included the recommendation that we end the counter-productive preoccupation with Israel in favour of alignment with the Arab countries. Soon thereafter I was summarily dismissed, the specious grounds and legal protection of the Public Service Employment Act notwithstanding. When I threatened to appeal. I was offered ‘reinstatement within a year when the heat from the Jewish Lobby dies down’ providing that I didn’t appeal nor contact any politician or the media on the subject. I agreed, but a year later found I had been conned, and had nothing in writing. Meanwhile, two Directors of PAFSO, the Foreign Service Officers’ Union, approached the DM on my behalf, only to be told that if they tried to assist Macdonald they would soon ’follow in his footsteps’. I promptly released them from their obligation.
I then took a position in Overseas Project Marketing, another branch of the Department, and was soon back in form, negotiating major contracts with the new Government in Libya with multi-billion dollar potential. One was the reassignment of the former BP concession to a Canadian company. The concession was producing 300,000 bpd, making the acquisition the largest in money terms of any ever achieved by a single Canadian. I visited BP headquarters in London and obtained their blessing, news of which I telexed to the Department. However, when I returned to my Ottawa office I met a furious reception, including curses, accusations of disobeying instructions, etc, the mildest of which was ‘poor judgment’. i was immediately physically expelled from my office, with instructions not to return, rendered incommunicado and (as I later learned) was once again recommended for dismissal. After several months’ purgatory, I was permitted to return to my office.
The dismissal was shelved at that time, but did take place in 1984 after I had negotiated an agreement in principle in 1983 for construction of a large lamb production project in Saudi Arabia where the client insisted that it be carried out by Canadians. The client (Prince Badr) and his Manager insisted that I be present as mediator at the final contract negotiations in Riyadh between the Saudi client and the Canadian consortium which I had formed for the purpose. A few days before the departure date I was ordered not to attend the meeting on pain of dismissal for ‘insubordination’ if I disobeyed. My sudden, unexplained withdrawal cast a shadow on the negotiations causing them to fail. The project was the largest of its kind with a value of at least $500 million. I asked the Embassy in Jeddah to send someone but they refused!
To contest the 1984 dismissal, I approached all the law firms in Ottawa who advertised competence in ‘unlawful dismissal’ litigation but, after initial enthusiasm, all declined when they ascertained that the Jewish Lobby (which included the Israeli Embassy) was the culprit. In desperation, as the appeal deadline approached, I drew up the appeal myself. I sent a copy to Doug Christie, whom I had heard speak in Ottawa, to vet my handiwork. He replied that he would be glad to represent me, despite the distance from Victoria, if I could find no other.
Since there were no legitimate grounds for dismissal, Mr Christie saw an easy win. As he began his examination, however, he was interrupted by the Judge who told him he should think twice if he intended to mention ‘Jews’ or raise the subject of a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ since to do so would seriously jeopardize his chance of success (it had not been his intention). His presentation seemed more than adequate, especially since the Department of Justice lawyers presented no evidence. Nevertheless, the Appeal failed.
I asked an old friend, who had specialized in Public Service law, how it was possible that I l could lose. He asked the name of the Judge. When I told him, he said the Judge was an ‘old political party hack who knows how the game is played’. By chance I ran into a former neighbour, the renowned Judge John Matheson, at an Alumni Reunion at Queen’s and put to him the same question. He asked the name of my lawyer. When I replied ‘Doug Christie’ he said ‘Well, that’s your answer there’s no way they were going to let him win the case’.
More recently, I retained Doug Christie in a defamation claim I lodged against the CBC for permitting the egregious Warren Kinsella to state on national TV that I was one of the main sources of finance for right-wing terrorism in Canada. The Judge found that the comments were not defamatory even to the slightest degree and, falsely, that in any event I was out of time, giving credibility to Kinsella’s ludicrous story and forcing me to pay the Defendant’s substantial legal fees. The decision was upheld on appeal. A Supreme Court application was denied.
I have followed Doug Christie’s fortunes and misfortunes for many years and recognize him as being without par the epitome of all that is honourable and equitable in the practice of his profession, combined with an empathy for ostracized victims of our Politically Correct society who are shunned, condemned and punished, however worthy and valid their opinions. He is virtually unique in Canada in his self-sacrifice on behalf of his victimized clients and in his willingness share their distress, although it has cost him any esteem he might have earned in law and politics, and an otherwise profitable legal career.
It has also cost him his health, as he has been struck down in his prime by a cancer that doubtless was induced by the stress and frustration of appearing before a hostile judiciary and facing the wrath of venal law society zealots, covering their shamelessness with invective, ad hominems and baseless condemnation of an ultra-respectable man whose Christian rectitude and respect for tradition are beyond their comprehension.
He has many admirers who now seek to memorialize him for all his good works as an outstanding Canadian, selfless Good Samaritan and proud Scot who dedicated his life to the struggle for truth, freedom and justice to a degree equaled by few if any others. He deserves recognition by the people of Canada. At a minimum, this should include the award of the Order of Canada and I ask, if you would be so kind, as a presumed sympathizer, that you nominate him. Your sponsorship would more likely succeed than would mine, since you are widely respected and would have no perceived vested interest.
The nomination forms are available online as is all necessary information on the nominee. I would be glad to prepare the forms for you, if you prefer.
Yours sincerely,

Douglas H. Christie
April 24, 1946 March 11, 2013
The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still the waters.
He restoreth my Soul:he leadeth me
in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
Thou anointest my head with oil;my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

~ Psalm 23
LordismyShepard photo LordismyShepardcopy2.jpg
God bless you Doug. Your life and your work and your love for humanity
will live on and inspire others to carry on the struggle for freedom of speech
and all the other freedoms that will follow in its wake.
Rest in Peace.

The Gulag Archipelago
Texe Marrs
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0091.htm
‘I love strong opponents! It’s such fun to break their backs! said the Leningrad interrogator Shitov. And if your opponent (e.g. your prisoner) is so strong that he refuses to give in, all your methods have failed and you are in a rage? Then, don’t control your fury! It’s tremendously satisfying, that outburst! Let your anger have its way; don’t set any bounds to it. Don’t hold yourself back! That’s when interrogators spit in the open mouth of the accused! And shove his face into a full toilet! That’s the state of mind in which they drag Christian believers around by their hair. Or urinate in a kneeling prisoner’s face! After such a storm of fury you feel yourself a real honest-to-God man!’
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
It’s been all over the press, on TV and in newspapers. Mel Gibson, the famous movie actor and director, has been horribly slandered, defamed, and verbally mauled by the Jewish elite who uniformly hate and despise Gibson’s powerful film, The Passion of The Christ. The ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and other racist anti-Christian hate groups have made Gibson their whipping boy now for over a year.
But, hold on! You think Gibson has been treated unfairly, you haven’t seen anything yet. Consider the case of Nobel Prize-winning historian and writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The Jews have been ripping into, slandering and otherwise savaging the reputation of the solidly Christian Solzhenitsyn for some four years now. But unlike the Gibson affair, the controlled media disingenuously refuse to report it. Solzhenitsyn is the hapless victim whose brutal mental whipping and emotional beating the world knows nothing about.
It now seems aeons ago that the stoic Russian author was celebrated for his insightful, poignant accounts of the horrible, subhuman treatment of the victims of the Soviet Communist Gulag, an interlocking system of thousands of concentration and slave labor camps. Solzhenitsyn himself had been a prisoner of the Gulag for a decade, preventively jailed for nothing more than the fear of the communist overlords that he might someday write something the Kremlin masters might find offensive to the state.
Solzhenitsyn: The ‘Conscience of the 20th Century’
Historian Solzhenitsyn’s gut-wrenching book, Gulag Archipelago, went through countless printings—in over 50 languages—and touched the hearts of westerners. Expelled by the Kremlin for telling the awful truth, this great man was honored by freedom-loving people both in the United States and in Europe. He was often called the ‘Conscience of the 20th Century’ and recognized universally as one of the globe’s prime examples of bold courage and moral conviction. Even the liberal press initially had nice things to say about Solzhenitsyn. They were reluctant to go up against a man so honored for high moral stature, and recognized by so many as a truth teller of the highest character.
Then, the historian and truth teller Solzhenitsyn made what was, to liberals and communists, a grave error. Asked at a press conference his opinion on why the terrible events behind the Iron Curtain had occurred, why millions were carted away, tortured, starved and worked to death in Gulag slave camps, Solzhenitsyn gave this simple, yet startling, response: ‘Man has forgotten God.’
The brave Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the famous Russian writer who has been called the ‘Conscience of the 20th Century,’ served eight long years in the Soviet Gulag prison system. Today, he is hated by top-level Jews in America and around the world because he exposed the Jewish leadership of the genocide of 66 million Communist Gulag victims. Many victims were Christians.
‘Outrageous,’ the Critics Roared
‘What did you say? God? Outrageous!’ the critics roared. Immediately, the world’s press began a reversal of opinion about this man they once had lionized. Some called him a ‘Christian fanatic.’ Others said Solzhenitsyn was ‘reactionary…right wing…a religious nut.’
Then, in 2000, Solzhenitsyn released a blockbuster new book he had penned entitled Together For Two Hundred Years. The new book was a lengthy treatise, a thorough and far-reaching compilation of several decades of research by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn into the machinations for two centuries of Jews inside Russia and the Soviet Empire.
Karl Marx, the Jewish radical who inspired Lenin and Trotsky with his communist theories, was secretly a High Priest of Satan (see Richard Wurmbrand’s book, Marx and Satan).
Accurate in every detail, painstakingly documented, the author showed how, over the centuries, a small band of revolutionary Jews had conspired and plotted to overthrow the Russian Czars. Their aim: seize control of Czarist Russia and establish a beachhead for a Jewish utopia on planet earth—the long sought after Kingdom of the Jews.
The Gulags of the Jewish Revolutionaries
With staggering implications, Together For Two Hundred Years showed how Lenin, Trotsky and other Jewish conspirators had overthrown the Romanov dynasty in 1917 and set up their own Bolshevik totalitarian system. The result: The nightly assassination and roundup of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, most of whom were herded by black-hearted Big Brother secret police into thousands of monstrously evil Gulag concentration camps.
The largest number of victims, Solzhenitsyn reports, were Christian believers, understandable since the revolutionary Jews despised and hated Jesus and His Chosen People, the Christians. All-in-all, about 66 million innocent people were kidnapped and eventually died a hideous death at the hands of the Jewish ‘Ivan the Terrible’ corps.
66 million murdered by mostly Jewish Gulag overlords! That’s over ten times the number of Jews claimed to have been slain in Nazi concentration camps.
Obviously, such a powerful—and truthful—book as Together For Two Hundred Years must be suppressed. And it has been. No English-speaking publisher, either in Britain or in the U.S.A. has dared to publish it. So far, Solzhenitsyn’s book has only been issued in the Russian language.
‘Crush This Insolent Wretch’
Shamelessly, yet quietly and without a lot of fanfare, Jewish organizations have put out the word: ‘Crush this insolent wretch, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Give his works, his voice no forum, kill him with neglect. If you must mention his name, say it with scorn and with taunts and ridicule. Punish him severely for attempting to reveal our secrets to the world. Let him be an example of what the Jewish Power can do to a man who stubbornly refuses to tow the Zionist party line.’
I have seen what they have done to Solzhenitsyn. I have read their biased and spiteful reviews of his book in the controlled media and witnessed their revengeful hatred of him in countless Jewish magazines, websites, and journals influential but relatively unknown to the public at large. The ruthless Jewish Power clique works to kill men in a variety of ways. With Mel Gibson, it was more public. With Solzhenitsyn, it is more personal and private. Clearly, Solzhenitsyn’s writings about the Jewish leadership of the Soviet Holocaust is viewed as a grave threat to the Jewish Plan for global supremacy.
In Russia, millions of people—many of them survivors of the Gulag—still love and respect the aging man of God, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. They have read his newest book, and they know it is true. They lived it! They also well understand why such a book is being kept from the American people. The Talmudic Jews are fiercely determined that the whole truth about their repugnant, geno-cidal crimes be covered up. Solzhenitsyn’s reputation must be progressively tarnished and his writings buried forever.
So now, the man, Solzhenitsyn, who suffered under the Jewish Gulag tormentors for so long, must now be tortured once again, and for the same purported ‘crime,’ the offense of using ‘words.’
It was Lenin who once said, ‘Words are more deadly than bullets.’ Leninist ideology is truly an exemplar of the poisonous Talmudic Jewish mindset. Today, in America, there are, consequently, many things a man cannot say, cannot write about, and cannot publish. I know. I have, myself, faithfully followed God’s calling and done my best to follow in Solzhenitsyn’s footsteps. The Jewish holocaust revisionists have punished me, too, and they continue today to threaten and bully whip me and Power of Prophecy ministries.
Like Mel Gibson and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Texe Marrs is now being falsely and cruelly branded an ‘anti-Semite,’ a ‘Jew-hater’ and worse, on all seven continents.
Fascinating, isn’t it, how much fury, venom, and wrath just a touch of truth can whip up among the Jewish overlords and their Gentile accomplices, who today guide Western culture and minutely monitor and control every aspect of media reporting on politics, economics, and religion.
The Fearless Few Are Hated
Their greatest hatred, their most vicious spewing of venom, is reserved for the fearless few who dare to reveal to the world the heinous crimes committed by the Jewish Power in the Communist Gulag, especially the Zionist murder of 66 million men, women, and children, many of them Bible-believing Christians.
Equally hated are men like Ernst Zundel of Canada, who have questioned whether six million Jews actually died in a Nazi Holocaust. But even if six million died in a Nazi Holocaust, what of the sixty-six million who perished in the Jewish Gulag? And remember: Thousands of Nazis have been tracked down and punished for their reported crimes against humanity. Why is it that not even one Zionist Jew has ever been brought to justice for the heinous crimes committed in the Jewish Communist Gulag? Why?
For almost six decades, America and the planet have been preaching to the Germans, reminding them of the terrible crimes of their Nazi ancestors. It is only fair and just that we all now turn our attention to the Communist Gulag Holocaust, that we expose the Jews’ role in its monstrous crimes and remind the Jews of what their criminal ancestors did to these sixty-six million innocent victims, most of whom were Christians.
Isn’t it also time we demand construction of a Christian Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., to be erected next door to the existing taxpayer-funded Jewish Holocaust Museum? Is only the suffering of Jews worthy of being memorialized? What about the pain and suffering endured by so many other ethnic and religious groups, including that of Russian and Eastern European Christians during the Jewish Bolshevik era? Don’t these tens of millions of Gentiles killed and tortured deserve to be remembered as well?

This article is an update of a study of the Canada Israel Committee (CIC) published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, 1992-3. It benefited by extensive comments from Professors John Sigler, Joseph Debanné, David Farr and Diana Ralph, and Rt. Hon Robert Stanfield, Ian Watson, and Bahija Reghai. I have discussed the Israel Lobby with about 20 foreign affairs officials, 2 former Prime Ministers, 3 former Secretaries of State for External Affairs, 8 Members of Parliament, 6 Senators, and 3 officials of the Canada-Israel Committee.
March 2010
Dr. Lyon is Professor Emeritus Political Science, Carleton University. He was a Rhodes Scholar, and obtained his D.Phil. from Oxford University. He served in the RCAF from 1940 to 1945.
He held posts as Foreign Service Officer, Department of External Affairs in Ottawa, Canada and in Bonn, Germany. He is the author of five books on Canadian foreign policy, trade and defence.

Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.
Canada’s foreign policy, however, fails to reflect these concerns. Its votes in the UN General Assembly and other international bodies are closer in support of Israel than those of any other nation apart from the United States and its five Pacific satellites. Prime Minister Harper’s personal statements are more biased towards Israel than those of any other leader(1) This imbalance does not accord with the advice of the men and women employed by Canada to determine and implement its interests in the Middle East. It is also opposed by an increasing number of churches, unions, and other bodies concerned with peace and justice in Palestine.
Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at
compared to 5.40 for each of the Prime Minister and the Department of External Affairs. The Canadian/Arab Community at 1.80 was ranked sixteenth out of the eighteen estimated influence inputs. (2) Although the Arab Community has become better organized in recent years, interviews with senior officials and case studies suggest that there has been little change in this ranking.
There is of course nothing illegal or immoral about lobbies, even those operating in the interest of foreign entities. A significant number of ethnic groups do in fact lobby for their countries of origin. (3) Canada’s Israel lobby is simply by far the most powerful and effective. It has become customary to refer to it as ‘the Lobby’, and I shall follow that practice. The Lobby claims to act on all Canada-Israel matters on behalf of an estimated two- thirds of the three hundred and fifteen thousand Canadians of Jewish origin.(4)
For obvious reasons, the American-Israel lobby is far larger, more powerful, and better known than its Canadian counterpart. (5) There are further significant differences and I shall begin with them. American Jews number about three percent of the population whereas the Canadian equivalent is a more modest one percent. American Jews, having arrived earlier in North America, are more integrated into the general population and less united in support of their government’s Mid-East policy. Canadian Jews, in the words of Professors Taras and Weinfeld, ‘are more Jewish.’ Other authorities have said they are more conservative. (6) ‘Is there,’ asked Gerald Caplan, another prominent Jew, ‘any act of Israel that will shame the leaders of Canadian Jewry into saying enough is enough?’ (7)
The biggest difference in the tactics followed by the two lobbies lies in their degrees of openness and use of threats. Because the role of Congress in making foreign policy is much greater than that of Parliament, and party discipline is weaker, the American lobby focuses on individual members of Congress, none of whom can take refuge behind a party line. Because cabinet solidarity matters more in Ottawa, the Canadian Lobby makes a greater effort to focus on every minister. Lobbying, moreover, is more acceptable in the American political culture and can be more open and hard hitting. A reputation for wealth, ruthlessness and success is in fact an asset whereas in Canada lobbies operate more discreetly and soft- pedal their influence. American elections are more frequent than in Canada; this makes raising funds more difficult, thus increasing the vulnerability of candidates to lobby pressure. Lobbying in the United States, however, is subject to greater legal restriction than in Canada. One authority goes so far as to say that, because of tighter organization, it is more effective in Canada. (6)
All in all, lobbying in each country is probably about equal in effectiveness. Elections afford each Lobby the greatest opportunity to exercise influence. Although most Jewish Americans have voted Democratic, and Canadian Jews Liberal, neither are formally aligned and votes can be swung if a party adopts what might appear to many Jews to be an anti-Israel approach. Jimmy Carter, in making an exceptional effort to bring peace to the Middle East, angered Israel and its American Lobby. As a result, Carter lost almost half his Jewish vote between 1976 and 1980, a loss which contributed to his defeat in the 1980 election. Sydney Spivak, chairman of the Canadian Lobby’s 1998 policy conference, threatened a similar outcome when Joe Clark, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, criticized Israel’s suppression of Palestinian rights.
A particular triumph for the American lobby was the defeat in 1984 of Charles Percy, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As Tom Dine, executive director of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs committee) — the predominant US-Israel lobby — boasted to a Toronto audience, ‘All the Jews in America … gathered to defeat Percy. And the American politicians got the message.’ (8)
A comparable Canadian case was that of Dr. Frank Epp, an outstanding scholar and President of Waterloo University. In 1979, Epp ran as a Liberal in what was considered the safe Liberal seat in Waterloo. However, his desire for a more balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict was falsely depicted by the Lobby as ‘anti-Semitic’ a charge the Lobby frequently uses to discredit critics of Israeli government policies. In Epp’s case, the attack culminated in a full-page advertisement on election eve. In a constituency containing several thousand Jews, Epp was defeated by a mere 155 votes.
In the Toronto riding of Saint-Paul’s, with about 20,000 Jewish voters, the 1979 election featured a Conservative promise to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Conservative candidate, Ron Atkey, won. In the election the following year after Prime Minister Clark had abandoned his promise to move the embassy the seat swung back to John Roberts of the Liberals.
In 1984 a Manitoba court ruled that unfair lobbying could have caused the defeat of Conservative candidate Luba Fedorkiw in Winnipeg North. Fedorkiw accused the Jewish advocacy group, B’nai Brith, of having defeated her by suggesting she was anti-Semitic and levelling the false charge of ‘Jew-baiting’ against her. She was awarded $400,000 in damages.
The Lobby concentrates on the ten constituencies where most of the Jewish and Arab/Muslim populations are located. Proportionally more Jews, however, go to the polls and are more likely to make a difference. It should also be noted that a substantial minority of the Arabs are Maronite Christians who are indifferent to the fate of the majority of Arabs.

A trickle of Jews had begun to enter Canada early in the 18th century but was still insignificant in 1897 when the founding of the Zionist Movement augmented the political significance of the Jews in both Europe and North America. A few influential Jews made individual approaches to government leaders to gain permission for more Jews to enter Canada. They achieved little success. In the 1930s, Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s government began shutting the door to Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. King’s deputy minister for immigration even opined that ‘None is too many’ and on the eve of the Second World War, a boatload of the refugees was denied permission to land. (9) This outrageously racist attitude appears to have been widely shared by the public as well as the prime minister.
The war, however, and the revelation of the slaughter of six million Jews[sic], transformed the situation. Sympathy for the Jews became nearly universal. Any criticism of the newly-created state of Israel came to be branded ‘anti- Semitic’, one of the ugliest terms in our political vocabulary. Canada’s prominent role in the creation of Israel was accepted with little room for protest (10)
The Israel Lobby took formal shape in 1967 when the three major Canadian Jewish organizations, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Zionist Organization and B’nai Brith, established the Canada- Israel Committee (CIC) to act on behalf of Israel. This is an umbrella organization with no individual members. It was intended to monopolize public statements on Canada-Israel matters but officials of B’nai Brith, notably Frank Dimant, frequently disregard this rule. CIC policy is determined by a 35-person council representing the founding organizations and several smaller bodies based in the large cities. It meets about once a year, its executive much more often.
The CIC reported in 2000 that it had a seven-person office in Ottawa to deal with the federal government and another seven persons in Toronto to conduct media relations and research; one person was stationed in Montreal to handle regional lobbying; and a further two in Jerusalem. The CIC did not reveal its budget but it was estimated to be at least $11,000,000. The Lobby certainly commands far greater wealth than opposing entities, and far easier access through its extensive business connections to members of the cabinet and other senior decision-makers. Representatives of Arab/Muslim groups are rarely able to secure senior- level appointments in government while these are more attainable for the Lobby. Changes in Canada’s Middle East policy go to Cabinet, while other foreign policy changes do not necessarily need to meet this requirement, one that clearly favours the Lobby.
The Lobby adopted a more effective if heavy-handed approach in 2002 when a group of exceptionally wealthy Canadian Jews reached the conclusion that the CIC was failing to give Israel adequate support. Led by Israel (Izzy) Asper, Gerald Schwartz, Heather Reisman, and Brent Belzberg, the group established the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA). This council raises substantially greater funds than other Jewish lobby groups and employs professional lobbyists. Although professing to collaborate with the CIC, B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress, the new body was not welcomed by them. One senior CIC official complained that the CIJA is ‘a group of self- appointed persons who have very little linkage with the Jewish (grass roots), and who have their own private agendas.’ (11) When the councils differ over policy, it is the CIJA — the one with the ‘big bucks’ that generally prevails.
In its first year, the CIJA sponsored several conferences and more than doubled the number of sponsored ‘study’ visits to Israel. They included, among others, 23 federal politicians with spouses and seven university presidents. The CIJA claimed to have won the ear of those who make decisions, and thus gets credit for a sharp shift towards Israel in Canada’s international posture.
The Lobby’s tactics are not unlike those of other lobbies. It supports Canadians who support Israel and criticizes those who don’t. It caters to decision-makers who seem open to persuasion. It addresses articles and letters to the media. It supplies information to journalists, provides speakers, and sponsors seminars and conferences as well as subsidizing tours of Israel. The Lobby’s primary attention, of course, is paid to the officials and politicians who make or influence the decisions of interest to Israel. They are entertained and briefed frequently. As one deputy minister put it, they are ‘all over us, from minister to desk officer.’ The Arab- Canadians, he explained, do much the same, but the Lobby ‘does it better’.(12) He could have added that Jewish-Canadians have easier access to high places. The Lobby does not employ explicit threats but knows that MPs and others can count, and the fate of Frank Epp has intimidated many others. Libby Davies, the NDP member for Vancouver-East, says MP’s live in what she calls ‘a climate of fear’ on issues dealing with Israel-Palestine.(13)
The Lobby also seeks to shape the future by extensive activity in the universities. Officials are placed in all the major institutions to foster Hillel clubs that promote communal sentiment among Jews and beyond by means of talks and debates. A separate body,’StandWithUs’, provides students with financial assistance to gain training in how to fight what the Lobby considers ‘anti-Israel’ actions. Its activity has contributed to serious strife and extensive publicity in two universities. In 2002, at Concordia, the administration blocked Arab and Muslim students from attending a planned speech by Benjamin Netanyahu, the right-wing Israeli leader. This resulted in anger over perceived discrimination that led to a riot of 2,000 protesters. The speech was subsequently cancelled. At York university, in February 2009, the administration itself fostered turbulence by excessive measures to halt peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrations.(14) In other universities, notably Toronto, McMaster, Ottawa, and Carleton, the Lobby has backed the administrations in their attempts to ban pro-Palestine activities such as the annual Israeli Apartheid Week.
Professors are prominent among the Canadians treated in whole or in part to ‘study’ visits to Israel. About a dozen such visits have been partially sponsored each year by the ‘Canadian Professors for Peace in the Middle East’ (CPPME), an organization professing to be neutral and sponsored in large part by the Social Science Research Council, a body financed from the federal government treasury. The Israel portion of the CPPME ‘study’ visits, however, is sponsored by the World Zionist Organization, and members are likely to be expelled if they fail to accept the party line. (15)
The Lobby professes independence but has solicited and obtained advice from Israeli officials. Former Israeli Ambassador Alan Baker, who finished his four-year posting in 2008, was exceptionally bold in his public statements of Israeli policy.(16) That is in line with an ordinary ambassadorial function. However, Baker went a step further and told Jewish Canadians how they should manage their affairs. For example, he urged the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) in public to pass a by-law that would make its relationship to Israel advocacy ‘professional, serious and practical’ and, implicitly, less democratic.
The overall success of the Lobby is best illustrated by Canada’s votes in the annual UN General Assembly’s assessment of the 60-year long Mid- East crisis. The Canadian delegates have often been embarrassed when the lights on the score panel reveal their country to be one of a minority of eight, along with Israel, the United States and its five Pacific satellites, voting against any resolutions deemed critical of Israel and its policies. Even Britain displays stronger criticism of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories despite the fact that the U.K. generally tries to stay in line with American policy. After his retirement, William Barton, Canadian ambassador to the United Nations from 1976 to 1979, expressed the dismay characteristic of Canadian representatives: ‘We were generally identified along with the United States as the most pro-Israel delegation in the UN … most of our delegates felt that this was not in the best Canadian interest.’ (17) Barton elaborated that Canada had voted not on the merits of the case but for political considerations determined in Ottawa.(18) Under Prime Minister Harper, Canada has further hardened its opposition to the majority of UN members’ criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
Canada has also stood out in the two UN conferences on racism held in Durban. At the first, it denounced and then cast a solitary negative vote against the majority resolution in the Durban conference. At the second, its opposition was made even more emphatic by refusing to attend. Canada’s bias is further demonstrated by its solitary negative position in the Human Rights Council, and by refusing to accept the International Court of Justice’s ruling by a 14-1 vote that the wall being constructed by Israel, partly on Palestinian land, is illegal. The wall effectively cuts off one part of the West Bank from the other, dividing families, villages and farms. Earlier, Canada had been the first to suspend aid to Palestine after its democratic election resulted in victory for Hamas, the radical party most critical of Israel. Canada’s tilt towards Israel is also evident in conferences of La Francophonie where it has been the single participant to vote against a resolution favouring Palestine’s right to declare independence without waiting for negotiations with Israel.
Canada was even slower than the US to recognize the right of the PLO to speak for the Palestinians. When it did, it did so with a minimum of cordiality. Canada continued to show marked favouritism towards Israel. The president of Israel, for example, was accorded the rare honour of an invitation to address a joint session of both Houses of Parliament, whereas it was only after a struggle that a PLO official was invited to speak to a Senate committee. Canada’s official rhetoric fails to recognize that the Palestinians and Jews are equal in humanity. Its formal statements of objectives in the Arab-Israel dispute regularly lead off with ‘the security, well-being and rights’ of Israel, but not of the Arab countries. Israeli casualties are presented in more tragic terms than those of Arabs. Palestinian suicide bombings are characterized as cowardly and despicable while Israeli war crimes, such as the massacre of over one hundred Lebanese civilians in Qana in 1996 and the killing of many hundreds of civilians during Israel’s invasion of Gaza in 2008-2009, are passed over lightly or ignored. Prime Minister Harper and other ministers habitually refer to Israel as an ‘ally’ which it is not formally, and which implies that another is an ‘enemy’.
Arab-Muslim governments and the PLO do heed Canada’s UN voting pattern and official statements. Even before Canada recognized the PLO at the ambassadorial level, lesser officials had engaged in informal chats with PLO observers, helping them understand US statements and how best to respond to them. In the view of Palestinians, however, such behaviour did not excuse Canada’s habitual pro-Israel posture, as its then foreign minister, Peter Mackay, discovered during his first ministerial-level conversations in Palestine in 2007. Arab extremists, moreover, increased their threats against Canadian lives, and Canada was specifically cited as a prime target in Al-Qaeda communiqués. Although Canada has not suffered the loss of life to terrorism inflicted on the US, Britain and Spain, the RCMP have laid charges against four young Arab Canadians believed to have been plotting attacks on Canadian buildings.
The clearest success of Canada’s Israel lobby was the cancellation in 1970 of Canada’s invitation to the UN to hold in Toronto a major conference on combating crime. All three levels of government had favoured the invitation until it was realized that, according to UN rules, the PLO would be entitled to attend as an observer. The Ontario and Toronto governments then reversed their acceptance and the issue became heated in Ottawa. Jewish-Canadians were not alone in thinking that it would be abhorrent to receive ‘terrorists’ at a conference on the prevention of crime. Threats of violence against PLO observers, even one of assassination, were heard in Lobby circles and the police worried about the measures required to guarantee conference security. The Department of External Affairs (DEA) continued its battle in order to honour Canada’s commitment to the international community but lost. The conference was held in Geneva with little ado. At one stage the cabinet had decided to proceed with the conference but it then reversed its position. One of Trudeau’s senior cabinet ministers at the time has speculated that this resulted from a call from ‘Montreal’ threatening to cut the substantial Jewish contribution to the Liberal’s national fund. The minister added that he had never seen Trudeau so agitated. (19)
A similar reversal came under a Conservative government in 1988 when Joe Clark was Secretary of State for External Affairs. In an address to a Canada-Israel Committee banquet, Clark joined most other governments in condemning Israel’s breaches of international law in its suppression of the first Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza. Especially provocative was his complaint that Israel had manipulated food supplies to exert pressure, and his tribute to the peaceful disposition of the three Arab countries he had just visited. This was taken to imply that they were more interested in peace than Israel. The conference was outraged and responded with booing, a partial walkout and the singing of the Israeli national anthem. Loud applause greeted the suggestion from the chair that revenge would come at the next elections.
Prime Minister Mulroney, who had not read the text in advance, hastened to inform Jewish leaders that Clark had spoken only for himself. Clark hurried to address a Jewish-Canadian audience to assure the ‘community’ that Canadian policy had not changed and that Canada would ‘protect, defend, and endorse the State of Israel for ever.’ Such an extraordinary assurance, combined with a lack of progress towards a more even-handed treatment of the Palestinians, did little to appease the Lobby in its attitude towards the Department of External Affairs and its minister. Even though the public response to Clark’s address was favourable, his successors were cautious when they recalled the anger that had swept through much of Canadian Jewry.
A questionable Lobby victory came in the general election of 2008. The Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, ordered a duly nominated candidate in Winnipeg, Lesley Hughes, to step down, claiming that she had expressed anti-Semitic views in an article written a decade earlier. Dion explained, along with a spokesman for the Canadian Jewish Congress, that he was acting under pressure from B’nai Brith. Hughes, however, had no difficulty demonstrating that the article in question was in no sense anti-Semitic and that her record over the years had shown consistent support for valid Jewish interests. The public overwhelmingly endorsed Hughes. (20)
Another revealing incident occurred in 1991 when Norman Spector was appointed Ambassador to Israel to replace Michael Bell, an experienced diplomat who had barely completed half his term. The reason for Spector’s posting, offered by both Prime Minister Mulroney and Spector, was that there had been a policy against posting Jews as ambassador to Israel. The appointment was said to be ‘affirmative action’ to remedy this discrimination. In fact, there had never been any such policy(21) but the appointment certainly pleased the Lobby. In Tel Aviv, Spector explained to a delegation from the Canadian Jewish Congress that his function was to repair the damage created by his minister, Joe Clark, because of the latter’s criticism of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Spector pushed through a free trade agreement with Israel that had been strongly opposed by DEA and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Since it was the only such agreement in the area at the time, and had only modest trade implications, it was regarded by Israel’s Arab neighbours as a strictly political measure and was resented by them. Back in Ottawa, Spector falsely accused his DEA colleagues of having lied in order to frustrate the negotiation of the agreement.
Another trade issue had a different outcome. In 1978, Ontario had passed legislation to block the Arab-Muslim boycott of firms trading with Israel, and all three federal parties promised to introduce similar legislation. Trade and Commerce Minister Herb Gray was an enthusiastic supporter of the Lobby. However, he yielded to business pressure to ignore the demand for the anti-boycott legislation. Firms wanted to continue to trade not only with Israel but with all other countries in the region, even though some individual firms, both Jewish and non- Jewish, contribute substantially to the Lobby.
Although it has no formal links with the Lobby, the Evangelical branch of the Christian church — about three million strong in Canada lends great strength to the Lobby by its interpretation of the Bible. In its view the second coming of Christ will take place in a Jewish Palestine where, according to many Evangelicals, Jews must at that time control all of the ‘Holy Land.’ As a result, Evangelicals tend to zealously support Israel and its occupation of the West Bank. They are exceptionally strong in Alberta, where they may have influenced Prime Minister Harper, who himself is an Evangelical.
Several bodies oppose the Lobby. One of the most obvious is the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations (NCCAR) that speaks for most of the Arab-Canadian population. Although now approximately as strong numerically as the Jewish Canadian community, Arab/Muslim-Canadians are generally far less wealthy and much less cohesive. NCCAR maintains two representatives in Montreal and several volunteers in Ottawa. It works to promote Canada-Middle East relations, and lobbies for peace with justice in the region.
Other significant groups are the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF, which represents over forty organizations), and the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC). Both command articulate leadership and are gaining in influence as Arab/Muslim-Canadians advance in numbers, political sophistication and resolve. A newer group, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), comprises Canadians of all backgrounds. However, all these organizations remain far less influential than the Israel lobby.
The most serious challenge to the Lobby comes from within the Jewish- Canadian community itself. A rapidly increasing number — perhaps one- third of the community is now critical of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. For understandable reasons it is not easy for Jews to criticize Israel, which many see as their biblical home and their promised refuge. Survivors of the Holocaust cannot be expected to take communal bonds lightly. The charge ‘anti-Semite’, or ‘self-hating Jew’, is especially hard to face. The Jews who do speak out against Israel’s occupation include some of the most talented members of the Jewish community. They are now led by an umbrella organization named Independent Jewish Voices, which is seen as a growing threat by the Lobby.
Less influential but still significant are voluntary organizations in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere that are dedicated to challenging Israel’s military occupation. One is the Ottawa-based Middle East Discussion Group (MEDG). Despite its disarming name, it was established thirty years ago by a group led by the Rt. Hon. Robert Stanfield, Professor John Sigler and others, with the purpose of correcting the pro-Israel bias in Canada’s Middle East policy. Its membership now includes several dozen of Canada’s most distinguished academics, journalists and a number of ex- Ambassadors who have served in the region or in the UN. The MEDG keeps abreast of events in the Middle East and has presented briefs to the government. A growing number of other groups are now voicing opposition to Canada’s policy and have considered sanctions against Israel. These include churches (notably United, Unitarian, Anglican and Roman Catholic) and unions of which the largest and most vocal is the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE ).
At least one authority contends that Canada lacks sufficient influence to render the ME peace process a significant element in its foreign policy(22). This overlooks the fact that Canada has substantial influence in Washington, and Washington is the one capital that could impose a Mid- East settlement. Acting alone Canada might well accomplish little, but in concert with like-minded nations such as the Scandinavians and American supporters of a just ME peace, it could make a difference. However, there is little evidence that Canada has tried to influence Israeli or American policy(23). Norway, with but a sixth of Canada’s population, initiated the negotiation of the Oslo Pact, the most serious attempt thus far to resolve the long-standing ME crisis.
Canada’s influence was demonstrated at the very beginning of Israeli nationhood when Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand dominated the UN commission that recommended the partition of Palestine, leading to the legal creation of Israel. Lester Pearson, then the most influential diplomat in the UN, was instrumental in steering the relevant UN resolution through the General Assembly without adequate provision for the displaced Palestinians. Samuel Bronfman, at the time president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, stated that ‘Canada has played the most important role in partitioning Palestine.’ (24) David Horowitz, the representative of the Jewish Agency in the UN negotiations, concurred that ’ Canada more than any other country played a decisive part in all stages of the discussion of Palestine.’ (25) Leading Canadian historians agreed, and prominent Zionists called Pearson the ‘Balfour of Canada.’ Pearson attained even greater recognition in 1967 when he earned the Nobel Prize for initiating UNEF, the peacekeeping force that helped to end the Suez Crisis. Canada also led in establishing UNRWA, the relief and works agency that helps refugees in the Middle East, and subsequently took over the chair of the relevant multi-national working group.
Canada’s extraordinarily strong support of Israel is partially explained by the editorial bias of its media, which face intense pressure to conform. Almost half of Canadian newspapers and the popular television network, Global, were owned by the Asper family. The late Israel (Izzy) Asper, billionaire founder of the CanWest media empire, was a prominent leader of the Lobby. Although not a practising Jew, he travelled frequently to Israel, became a friend of its leaders and supported its policies. Israel, Asper once told a Toronto audience, ‘was an isolated island of democracy… in a sea of terrorism, corruption, dictatorship and human enslavement. Palestinian leaders … in their deadly campaign to destroy Israel … are aiming their bombs at innocent civilians or blowing up planes over Lockerbie…’ (26) Given such views, it is not surprising that the Asper employed his media to urge Canadians to treat Arab leaders as ‘gangster terrorists’, and disciplined the editors and journalists of his papers who strayed far from his beliefs. (26)
Leonard Asper, who took command of CanWest on Izzy’s death in 2003, shares his father’s beliefs but expresses them more moderately. In a prepared text he attributed what he sees as the pro-Muslim bias of most journalists to left-wing views, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and failure to recognize Israel as a bulwark to protect Jews. He complains that most reporters writing about the Middle East are ignorant, lazy and prone to accept ‘Arab coddling.’ (27) The Asper bias shows not only in CanWest reports and editorials, but also in the near-exclusion of columns and letters critical of Israel. In 2002, Montreal Gazette reporter Bill Marsden stated ‘we do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East.’ (28)
In 2004, the Reuters news agency complained that CanWest altered its reports on the Middle East, substituting the word ‘terrorist’ for different words used by the wire service(29) to describe Arabs. In another example, a 2006 study concluded that an Israeli child killed by Arabs was 83.3 times more likely to be reported than a Palestinian child killed by Israelis in the headlines or lead paragraphs of Canwest’s National Post.(30)
There appears to have been no systematic survey of media coverage of the Middle East. The Jerusalem-based correspondents of the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, as well as French-language Quebec newspapers, generally offer a more balanced approach to Israel-Palestine issues. The CBC has usually been objective, much to the dismay of the Lobby. But under relentless pressure in recent years, CBC television has tended to steer clear of reporting that might offend the Lobby. Many Canadians obtain their information from American media, much of which reflect the pro-Israel slant best characterized by Fox News. While the Lobby generally can take comfort from the editorial slant of the Canadian media on Middle East issues, it is often less pleased by the more objective analysis passed on to the government by Canada’s ten embassies in the area. Prime Minister Harper and his associates tend to take the same line as the Lobby, regarding foreign affairs officials as ‘Arabists’ who can largely be ignored.(31)
Since prime ministers play a decisive role in determining Middle East policy, it may be in order to consider some of their quite different attitudes. Mackenzie King disliked Jews and even expressed some admiration for Hitler. (32). He was uneasy about Lester Pearson’s exceptional activity in the new-born United Nations but did not block his promotion of the partition resolution that gave birth to Israel. Pearson enjoyed full support from Prime Minister St. Laurent. Pearson attributed his sympathy for Israel to his Sunday school teaching and also found most Arab spokesmen brash. In later years he conceded that Canada had been unfair to the Palestinians (33)
Pierre Trudeau strongly resented the pressure of the Lobby and of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.(35) Trudeau recounts in his Memoirs how Begin, during a visit to Canada in 1978, threatened to turn Jewish voters against the Liberals unless Trudeau supported Conservative Leader Joe Clark’s promise to transfer the Canadian Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trudeau refused, noting that Jerusalem was ‘defined by the United Nations as one of the occupied territories.’ (36) Later, in an interview when he was opposition leader in 1979, Trudeau said ‘Zionist’ pressure groups in the U.S. and Canada were undermining the prospects for Middle East peace. He added that Canadian Jewish leaders who had pressured the Conservatives to transfer the Canadian embassy to Jerusalem, and who urged much tougher legislation against an Arab economic boycott of Israel, had hurt Canada economically. Moreover, he said, ‘they have opened the way to a growing anti-semitism.’ (37)
In his brief tenure as prime minister, Joe Clark came to realize the political and legal impropriety of moving the embassy to Jerusalem. He abandoned the policy, adopting the views of Robert Stanfield, his predecessor as Tory leader whom he had appointed to study and report on Canada’s Middle East policy. Stanfield became a strong supporter of Palestinian rights, insisting that ‘when the Israelis do something wrong, we should be prepared to say so.’ (38)
Prime Minister Mulroney was much more pro-Israel and much more susceptible to Lobby influence. He stirred up a storm of protest in the Arab world when he praised the Israelis for ‘showing restraint’ after they had killed twenty Palestinians and wounded dozens of others in the suppression of the first Intifada. IrvingAbella of the Canadian Jewish Congress praised him for his ‘visceral attachment to Israel.’(39)
However, no previous Canadian prime minister has matched the near total support for Israel offered by Stephen Harper who has adopted the ‘Israel-right-or-wrong’ approach of the Israel Lobby and shown minimal concern for Palestinians. He described Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon as ’measured’ despite the fact that over a thousand civilians were killed by Israeli bombs and shell-fire. In his effort to win over Jewish voters, Harper approved the distribution of political pamphlets suggesting Liberals are anti-Semitic because of their lack of unconditional support for Israel. He has also moved aggressively to cut funding for aid and human rights organizations considered too sympathetic towards Palestinians.
In Israel itself the strength of the Canadian lsrael lobby is widely known and appreciated. Canadians are among the most popular foreigners in Israel. In part this is due to our pro-Israel votes and statements in international bodies. Yet it probably owes more to the fact that Canadians, per capita, have been the most generous towards Israel, notably in building legal university structures and subsidizing illegal settlement activities. ‘Canada Park’ is the name of a prominent recreation area situated between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. (Mention is seldom made of the three Palestinian villages ploughed under to make way for the park after the Six-Day War). Trade with Canada has been enhanced by our free trade agreement. Israelis with knowledge of the history of their country recall Canada’s role in its creation and also its lead in peacekeeping. Pressure from Canada for a just (and legal) peace settlement would probably be more acceptable than from almost any other country apart from the United States.
A clear indication of the price Canada has paid in the international arena for its pro-Israel stance was its failure in 2007 to be elected to the UN Security Council. It had previously been elected every ten years to fill the two-year seat reserved for a western member, and cherished this influential position. Canada is currently running again for a council seat but its pro-Israel stance is considered to be jeopardising its chances. As one UN official said, ‘If Canada is to play a constructive role, it has to re- establish its credentials as a fair and balanced interpreter of the developments that affect both sides.’ (40)
A Senate committee report issued on June 19, 2007, warned that Canada’s uncritical support for Israel in the United Nations Human Rights Council had led to the isolation of Canada. Prime Minister Harper vowed that Canada would not be ‘bullied’ into changing its position ‘ whatever the diplomatic or political cost.’ However, the obvious decline in our influence was regretted by many of the architects of Canada’s foreign policy who believe we should be pushing harder for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Palestine in return for a binding guarantee of Israel’s security.
Canada can hardly be said to lack influence or interest in the Middle East, but in what matters most to the Palestinians — their freedom and independence — we lag far behind every other western country. Our extremely pro-Israel posture may please the Lobby but it is contrary to Canada’s interests, those of the United States, those of the United Nations, those of Palestine, and those of Israel itself.

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Charter of Rights fall prey to Zionist misfeasance
By Arthur Topham
March 3, 2013
The recent, decision handed down on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by six of Canada’s Supreme Court justices, in the Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott case, was indeed a ‘supreme’ blow to Christians, to freedom of religion and to every individual’s right to freedom of speech in Canada. At the same time, it also was a remarkably clandestine victory for the foreign Zionist-Jew lobby groups such as B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA); all of whom reflect, represent and condone, in unabashed fashion, the principles and policies of the Zionist state of Israel, over and above the traditional rule of law that has been the hallmark of Canadian jurisprudence from its earliest beginnings.
On top of this victorious legal coup that the vast majority of Canadians remain either ignorant of or in denial of, there are the added collaborating players in this long-range agenda to subvert and mould Canada’s judiciary into a type more in keeping with that of the U.S.A’s; one which, in recent years, has become permeated by their Jewish lobby groups to such an extent that they’ve effectively emasculated the US legal system by introducing their own brand of Jewish Noahide laws into American jurisprudence. These Noahide laws are, in fact, ones that stem from the ancient writings of the Jewish Talmud; a horrendously hoary and convoluted compilation of endless sophistry and intellectual meanderings that attempt to cover the full gamut of possible mental masterbation on any conceivable topic capable of debate, all of which boggles the mind and taxes the heart and soul of anyone who is able to locate and delve into the bottomless pit of arcane, abstruse, macabre deliberations found therein.
It is my contention, based upon all recent research and extrapolation, that this same clandestine, Fifth Column Zionist-instigated seditious process is, and has been, occurring here in Canada since the inception of our nation’s ‘hate speech laws’ that, coincidentally, began to gain ascendency in Canada’s house of justice back in the late 1960’s when the major Jewish lobby groups first began to amalgamate and initiate this calculated, step by step, surreptitious program of incremental changes to Canada’s legal system; one that would eventually see the switch over from former Christian democratic principles of freedom of speech to those of the Talmudic Jewish Noahide laws under which Jewry has operated over the past two millennia. It is also my added contention that these subtle changes have been, and are being, spearheaded by those very justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who hold duel citizenship with the state of Israel and whose ultimate allegiance, I strongly allege, is first and foremost to that foreign nation.
Compounding and exacerbating this traitorous intent to corrupt and debase Canada’s legal system via ‘hate crime legislation’ is the growing realization by many Canadians that our so-called ‘independent’ media is, in fact, totally controlled, editorially and otherwise, by this same self-serving Zionist Jew consortium and that these media monopolists, along with their line of sycophantic, sayanim journalists and talking heads, are the major propaganda force behind this plot to subvert the Canadian justice system.
Most Canadians who have not been asleep at the wheel politically are now fully cognizant of the fact that the Harper Conservative government is the key to the success of these Zionist ‘hate crime’ operatives and their eventual triumph in binding the mouths and minds of Canadians so that any and all criticism of their planned take-over of the country will not be openly discussed, either in the print media, television or on the Internet. Their arsenal of epithets stands ready 24/7 to support any smear & fear campaign necessary to belittle and slander and denigrate those who show any indication of not bowing down in obeisance to their treasonous scheme to dismantle and re-create our former legal system so as to have it fit harmoniously with all the other nations that have also been infiltrated by these same self-chosen zealots.
The whole of the homosexual agenda is but one of the ruses that these lobbyists use in order to divide, confuse and conquer their opponents and justify, via their human rights commissions, tribunals and their Supreme Court double-agents, the introduction of more and more repressive anti-democratic ‘hate speech’ laws. These tactics, for those who have studied the Zionist’s modus operandi to any degree, are par for the course. The crucial thing for them is to use others rather than come straight out and say we’re bringing in all these repressive, Orwellian laws because we don’t want Canadians discussing and debating our ideology, our motives or our agenda; one that includes enslaving and punishing anyone who steps out of line and beyond that the total destruction of the Christian religion as we now know it.
There is, on top of all these seemingly inexplicable occurrences, a vital question that needs to asked and addressed with respect to the inordinate number of Zionist, duel-citizenship Jewish justices who have somehow wended their way upwards to the apex of Canada’s judicial system and are now literally in positions of supreme power and control with respect to influencing both our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Given that Canada is noted world wide for being a proactive, multicultural nation; one that welcomes immigrants from around the world to its shores and touts itself as being an open, free and culturally diverse society, the blatant imbalance that we are witnessing today in the ethnic composition of our Supreme Court justices is beyond question a problem in dire need of explanation.
Were we, as a nation, to give equal opportunity and consideration to the various visible minorities that make up our country’s population then this ought to be reflected in the composition of those who sit in judgement at the top of our federal judicial system.
Knowing that our First Nations population is the largest minority group in Canada it behooves all Canadians to ask the obvious: why do we not have a First Nations justice sitting in on our supreme court? Given that this nation was formed, literally, from the soil of the original people’s land and also given that the First Nations people constitute the largest group in the Canadian population matrix does it not make sense that when it comes to representing their interests that someone from their ranks ought to be a member of this august group of supreme court justices?
Next in line is our Chinese-Canadian population topping the list as the largest visible minority in Canada and again the obvious question is: why do we not have a Chinese-Canadian justice sitting in the SCC?
Next in line we have a very large South Asian population followed by an equally large black population. Where are the South Asian and the Black supreme court justices?
Finally, getting to the crux of this perplexing situation, as we go down the scale of relative population demographics we come to the ethnic Jewish population in Canada which, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, in 2010 numbered 375,000 in population, ranking somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25th in terms of group size and comprising, out of a total population of 33,890,000 Canadians, 1.1% of Canada’s total population. Yet, for their relatively small numbers in terms of percentages they now hold 4 out of 9 positions on Canada’s Supreme Court. That works out to 44.4% of Canada’s supreme court justices somehow stemming from 1.1 % of the country’s total population. If common sense cannot tell people that there is a glaring discrepancy here then something surely is wrong in the way that Canadians view the make-up of their nation’s highest court. No amount of intellectual verbiage can explain why this is so without getting into the fundamental question of what the real reasons are for this most obvious of imbalances wherein we have a preponderance of duel-citizen Jewish justices sitting and deliberating the vital questions currently being discussed in this brief essay.
Of course the immediate reaction from the Zionist lobbies is to reach up their proverbial sleeve and pull out their ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘hate speech’ cards and flash them across the nation via their controlled media in typical fashion whenever their power base is questioned or threatened. Then will follow their sophistry and rhetoric emanating from the academics and talking heads arguing that this blatant discrepancy is simply due to the fact that Jewish lawyers are the most intelligent, experienced and therefore qualified of all of Canada’s lawyers and, like the cream atop the cow’s milk, they naturally rise up to those positions of eminence and power.
As the kids would say, ‘Yah, sure.’
To conclude, it cannot be stressed or repeated enough that we either have free speech or we have controlled speech where Big Brother takes control of our conscience and our mind and leaves us as automatons and slaves to do their bidding and those who now sit in judgement over our collective rights , due to their recent actions in the Whatcott case, must be treated with the utmost suspicion and their motives fully analyzed.
The time to act on these concerns is yesterday. Tomorrow may be too late.
The SCC Puppets
I present below the figures of the three Ashkenazi Zionists who have, along with their controllers in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, and the other three Shabbez Goi justices, perpetrated this seditious act of attempting to twist the truth and our human right to freedom of speech into some form of kosher, Zionist fritter all the better to fragment and confuse the people of Canada so as to lure our nation further astray into the nightmare that awaits the world should Zionism ever gain full control over independent nation states.
It must also be adamantly born in mind as well that the fact that I am presenting and focusing on these three individuals is absolutely not to be misconstrued as having excused the other three protagonists in this deceptive legal drama. The primary purpose here is accent the Jewish lobby in Canad and its unsavory effect upon Canada’s legal system. It goes without saying that the other three justices have, for whatever reasons, also consented to this agenda and ought to be removed from their positions along with the three Zionist duel-citizen justices in question here.
McLachlin photo McLachlincopy_zps96a077d6.png
With respect to Canada’s current Madam Chief Justice McLachlin it is also relevant and fitting that the following quote by Jason Moscovitz of the CBC be mentioned here as it is most relevant to an understanding of the mindset of these six judicial side-kicks when it comes to our right to freedom of speech. Jason Moscovitz states: ‘Of all the attributes she brings to the high court, there is one that sticks out. Many legal experts say she does not consider the Charter of Rights to be necessarily sacred.’ [Jason Moscovitz CBC Date: 991103 Time: 22:00:00 ET 22:26:00 ET]
AbellaFlag photo abellaFlag_zpsbf55ffb4.png
While still in her twenties SCC Abella was appointed a member of the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. Her husband, Irving Abella, is the J. Richard Shiff Professor of Canadian Jewish Studies at York University in Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, one of the leading ‘hate speech law’ lobby groups in Canada.
SCC Justice Abella is on the International Board of the Hebrew University, a member of the United States Holocaust Museum’s Committee on Conscience (again, pushing the 6 million lies of the Zionists that have become since WWII one of the principal pillars supporting all of their criminal actions since that time).
The president (Canadian Section) of the International Commission of Jurists, cited her as one whose ‘entire life has revolved around the cause of human rights… She has shaped Canadian policy in equality rights, and…has also had a profound impact on human rights law and policy outside Canada.’ The precise manner in HOW SCC has ‘shaped Canadian policy in equality rights’ is now fairly apparent given her complicity in this recent and deplorable attack upon Canada’s unquestionable right to freedom of speech.
SCC Justice Abella also served as a commissioner on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Again, those who have been complicit in the actions of the human ‘rights’ commissions here in Canada have revealed their motives clearly enough over the past decade and longer and have lost credibility in the eyes of the rest of the 98% of Canada who do not want to have their rights tampered with to satisfy the spurious and fraudulent false front arguments of special minority groups.
FishFlag photo FishFlag_zps0946efd9.png
True to his name there’s definitely something ‘fishy’ about this lastest SCC decision.

RothsteinFlag photo RothsteinFlag_zps2256d32f.png
SCC Justice Rothstein has served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992. He has also held many other offices or appointments connected to the Manitoba Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
So what have people like Marshall Rothstein learned from all of their involvement in harassing and vilifying and criminalizing Canadians for having exercised their God-given right to freedom of expression and speech? By all appearances he’s learned that the manipulation of the law,when it is being supported by a Fifth Column media and a host of complicit, compromised politicians under the sway of the Zionist lobby, is relatively easy to accomplish and virtually a fait accompli.

Dear Freedom of Speech Lovers & Supporters,
True to form, as soon as word leaked out that Douglas Christie was diagnosed with a virulent strain of liver cancer, the Jewish-controlled Zionist media monopoly immediately commenced its vilification of Canada’s foremost fighter for our basic human rights.
Pathetic enough were their endless lies and smears and misrepresentations regarding Doug while he was in good health and standing strong and firm but for them to carry on now like blood-thirsty buzzards perched atop their ivory and steel Orwellian mind-control towers while Doug lays prostrate, fighting to stay alive, has got to be the penultimate example of just how cold, cruel and heartless these so-called ‘mainstream media’ moguls really are.
For those who are still in the dark as to Doug’s condition I am including a recent email that his good and dedicated wife Keltie Kubzo sent out concerning his condition. Please read it and if you can, send Doug some good loving, healing thoughts and good wishes.
Keltie:
I am writing to tell you about Doug’s recent diagnosis of metastatic liver cancer, and its implications.
Ironically, the hundreds of tiny, diffused foci of cancer that have spread to his liver, have apparently not come from the prostate cancer, which seems to be controlled, but from some unknown, new primary, that they are currently trying to locate. The doctors give an estimate of six months to live, but Doug and the kids and I realize this is only approximate and will rely on a number of factors. Consequently, we are dealing with an unknown time-frame. He is pretty weak and fragile, and the disease seems to have been moving extremely quickly, and continues to do so.
He’s been fighting hard in a jury trial for about three weeks, getting progressively sicker each day with pain and nausea until on Thursday he just couldn’t continue. There’s only about two days left in the trial and of course Doug wanted to finish it for the client because that’s Doug’s way. He would always fight to the very last inch for his clients and his principles, and that’s why he’s been both reviled and loved. Anyway, he just couldn’t do it and the case was adjourned for me to take him to emergency and that’s where this pervasive cancer was discovered. Despite the pain and nausea and weakness, up till yesterday afternoon he was still determined that he would go back to court on Tuesday for his very last jury address. That is not going to happen, as he just is not able. It’s very hard to believe that he is at this state in his life, so suddenly.
Our children and I are reeling in shock, but somehow we are not surprised because he’s had such battle fatigue for a very long time. Many of you have realized that, I know, seeing him fight so hard for so many years, being under the pressures of taking on unpopular cases and always being misunderstood for it. That has taken its toll. Despite that, you and I will always remember his humour and his loving generosity and his great joy in music, beauty, and human courage.
I am infinitely grateful for the people who have seen who he really is, and cared enough to communicate this to him, reminding him that he has not been alone in these terrible struggles. I hope that those of you who feel inclined to do so, will send him a little message of what is in your heart and mind for him. You can email me in reply to this letter, or send messages to Box 101, 255 Menzies Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3G6. Emails would be better as they will get here faster. His email address is [email protected] he can get them on his cellphone, which he has with him in the hospital while they do more tests and try to get his pain and nausea under control before he can, we hope, come home. He does not have the stamina right now for visitors or many phone calls.
For quite a few years now, I’ve been trying to get him to at least start on his memoirs, and I want to tell you that he’s left a body of writing that I will be able to work with so that his courageous story will be told.
Thanks again for the loving kindness of you, our friends near and far. You have supported the principles of freedom for many years, through all these struggles and we are deeply grateful for you.
Keltie Zubko
I would also like to thank Marc Lemire, another giant in the battle to retain our fundamental, God-given rights to freedom of speech, for sending his article which is posted below. To watch and listen to Doug’s YouTube’s and to read some of his words is to gain a true account of the man’s principles and integrity rather than listening to the litany of lies and epithets that are spewed forth from the mouths of Zionist hacks working for Zionist rags and tv stations across our once free nation.
Doug is down but he’s not out yet. Please pray for his recovery and for his family so that they can continue to support him over the next while. It’s never over until it’s over.
Also, please pass this post to everyone you can.
Sincerely

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
‘Digging to the root of the issues since 1998’
____________________________________
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/doug-christie-in-his-own-words-immortal.html
http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2013/02/doug-christie-in-his-own-words-immortal.html
Forget about the media invective that is currently being hurled at Douglas Christie by the whores in the controlled media party. Doug Christie is a decent, honourable and true fighter for individual liberty and freedom of speech in Canada. You can count on a single hand the number of decent lawyers in Canada, and Doug Christie is one of them!
Find out who Douglas Christie really is from his own words, in this YouTube video:
DougYou1
Doug Christie had a long and memorable legal practice. While the media gets in a lather about Doug’s more controversial so-called ‘racist’ and ‘anti-Semitic’ clients (because Doug dared to represent them), they actually only made up a small portion of his legal practice. According to the video above, Doug has represented clients on about 8,000 cases over 37 years as a defence lawyer generally representing the rights of the individual against the state. His cases range from child custody cases where the state persecuted parents to tax freedom cases.

Douglas Christie is a hero and dedicated fighter for freedom of speech. In my youth, I recollect attend a meeting where he was the guest speaker. I was struck not only by his superior oratory skills, but even more so by both his passion and love for freedom. He brilliantly conveyed the significance of what freedom is all about and how vital it is to resist artificially induced state control over it.

Over the past couple of decades I have become closely acquainted with Doug. The respect that spawned the evening I saw him speak for the first time only deepened with every case and submission that he made on behalf of freedom. His defences consisted of a rare combination of sound logic and reason combined with compelling emotion.

In my case before the Kangaroo court also known as the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal, Doug flew all the way from Victoria in order to participate. Typically, he had a major impact but none more poignant than when he raised questions about the ‘mental serenity issues’ surroundingCHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna. It was vintage Doug Christie!

Here are some of the transcript references of Doug Christie’s submissions to the Tribunal:
Photobucket
The closing submissions Doug gave in my case was a sight to behold. The entire courtroom was mesmerized as Doug hammered away at the pillars of censorship for close to two hours! Doug has a commanding voice and delivery that would make Clarence Darrow jealous.
Doug Christie wrapped up his comments with these very insightful critiques of censorship:
We’re here because this legislation is no joke. It has created a monstrous threat to freedom of speech. The passage of time has changed the nature of the communication, increased its volume, and made it rebuttable from the time of Taylor. If Sec. 13 had attacked the activities of drug user, lawyers would be lined up for their defence of narcotics users, but as it attacks free speech, there are few to defend it. Apparently, drug users are more popular than free speech.
The enemies of free speech don’t want to debate their opponents; they want to silence them. I don’t hesitate to say hate is right in some cases; hate for evil and hate where the lives of innocent people are at stake. We’re not allowed to argue the truth of what we say that might prove the validity of strong opinions.
The Commission wants a cease and desist order against Marc Lemire for a website he neither owns nor controls. This legislation allows this absurdity.
Apparently, to have an honest opinion that people don’t like is to violate the law. It is implicit that truth is no defence, honest belief is no defence, intent is no defence.
Hatred and contempt without reference to truth which is not a Sec. 13 defence is an invitation to hypocrisy. If we keep this legislation, we will undermine democracy and promote hypocrisy.
Doug Christie, you are my hero, and I wish you well. For 40 years, Doug has stood (often alone) as the beacon for freedom against state control, censorship and bullying.
You’re in my thoughts and prayers, and so is your entire family.
-Marc Lemire
February 26, 2013

The Rule Of Law in Canada: Another Stephen Harper Wreck
by Robin Mathews
February 24, 2013
Alberta energy specialist Andrew Nikiforuk (Tyee, Feb. 22, 2013) reports the involvement of the federal Minister of Justice in what may be called direct interference with the rule of law in Alberta. The story Nikiforuk tells leaves the trail of malfeasance clear and examinable.
In ‘a stunning move the Harper government’ through the Department of Justice (reports Andrew Nikiforuk) has promoted a key judge (in a landmark fracking case) from the Court of Queen’s Bench to the Alberta Court of Appeal. As Andrew Nikiforuk puts it, the move was made in order to remove Justice Barbara L. Veldhuis, presiding judge, from ‘the multi-million dollar ($33 million) lawsuit’ being pressed by Jessica Ernst in the matter of fracking pollution and those responsible for it.
Madam Justice Veldhuis will be replaced. Her replacement will automatically be questionable suspected of being a ‘plant’ to prejudice the case in favour of Stephen Harper and Encana, one of Canada’s largest natural gas producers.
Readers need to know that the judge on a case is usually for very obvious reasons bound to that case. The judge is said to be ‘seized’ with the case meaning responsible for all aspects of it from beginning to end. Being ‘seized’ usually means not to be interfered with, not unnecessarily delayed, NOT REPLACED without very sound reason because the judge knows most about the complications of the case.
The judge is ‘seized’ also because law and courts have a long history of powers of all kinds wanting to get rid of judges in order to tamper with, change, and/or redirect the judgement in cases. That is one of the reasons a judge is ‘seized’ so that any meddling by power can be seen for what it is, an action intended to violate the fair administration of justice.
Jessica Ernst is fighting Encana. and was close to getting a ruling from Madam Justice Veldhuis that she could sue ‘Alberta’s energy regulator … for failing to uphold provincial rules, protect groundwater, and respect the constitutional rights of Canadians’.
That ruling would have placed a burden of responsibility upon frackers that they have been doing everything they can to avoid [with the full support of Stephen Harper, anti-environmentalist].
The Harper Junta interference is, I suggest, mischievous, prejudicial, scandalous, and stunning in its obviousness.
But we have been there before.
In the trial of Dave Basi, Bobby Virk, and Aneal Basi (part of the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR by the Gordon Campbell group) the judge ‘seized’ with the matter was Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett. The pre-trial and trial ran from after the laying of charges in December 2004 to the outrageous explosive-ending of the trial in October 2010.
But that ending happened without Elizabeth Bennett presiding.
For like Justice Barbara L. Veldhuis in the fracking case Bennett was removed in what many believe was a Stephen Harper decision to protect his ‘friends’ Gordon Campbell and others.
In order to defend the accused, Defence lawyers had to call for RCMP officers’ notebooks, for investigation records, for materials in BC Rail headquarters, for government records of pre-sale manipulations, and much more. At almost every call, RCMP delayed. The Special Crown Prosecutor fudged and fumbled. Almost every time, Madam Justice Bennett upheld the Defence request as a reasonable part of the rights of the accused to defend against the charges against them.
Out of the blue Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett by the power that only resides in the Minister of Justice in Ottawa was raised to the B.C. Appeal Court. Would she leave the matter that she was seized with? In theory, she didn’t have to.
Then a nightmare event happened in the B.C. Supreme Court. Out of nowhere the bulldog Associate Chief Justice of the day Patrick Dohm appeared to preside at a process.
The apparent reason for the event was for the Special Prosecutor William Berardino to make a motion that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett be removed from the case. He gave two reasons. The first and completely ridiculous reason was that she couldn’t be in two places at once and so must go. The second reason he evinced was that she had incorrectly employed process. That I believe was a wholly false assertion.
Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm received the motion with enthusiasm … and with such approval that he admitted he had already chosen the person to succeed Elizabeth Bennett. That meant he had to have chosen Bennett’s replacement before there was a motion to have a replacement made!
The Special Prosecutor, incidentally, had been appointed in flagrant violation of the legislation governing the appointment of Special Prosecutors. William Berardino was not noted for experience in criminal prosecutions. But he had been partner and colleague for seven years of the sitting Attorney General Geoff Plant. And he had been partner and colleague for eleven years of the sitting Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel. Because of those connections he was completely unqualified for the appointment he received.
It seems he was to focus on the three men, to get a judgement against them, and to show to British Columbians that there had been real wrongdoers in the ‘sale’ of BC Rail, three of them, three (lower level) Sikh employees, and they were all charged and were all convicted. Justice triumphs! End of story.
It didn’t work. Mr. Berardino was confronted by excellent Defence counsel. They made a strong and fair case that defence of the accused could only be made by examining the actions of their highly dubious superiors…who gave orders.
Madam Justice Bennett permitted that reasonable defence.
Madam Justice Bennett was removed.
She was replaced by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie who was very soon elevated a few weeks later to Associate Chief Justice upon the retirement of Patrick Dohm. Quite soon after the end of the Basi, Virk, and Basi trial, she was elevated to the British Columbia Appeal Court.
Her role, it seemed to me sitting in the courtroom, was to get the case back to the three men only. But it didn’t work.
The trial became a hilarious display of amnesia … almost of general Altzheimers Disease. Gordon Campbell’s decade-long chief of staff, Martyn Brown, could remember almost nothing. A member of the BC Rail Board, Brian G. Kenning, could hardly remember his own name, and didn’t even finish his testimony before the trial ended. And there were to be about twenty-five more of the same to come.
If the cross-examination had continued in the same way and it might have grown worse the cover-up of major wrongdoers would, I am sure, have exploded. Something had to be done to end it. Backroom dealing went into high gear. The three accused agreed to what might be called charges reduced to almost nothing. The government of Gordon Campbell agreed to pay all of the ($6 million) costs of Defence.
The $6 million (that might be called a bribe by some) to avoid criminal charges against top politicians and corporate ‘leaders’ (and perhaps some years behind bars for them) was cheap. It was a breach of procedure and was paid out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia but what the hell! It worked.
Stephen Harper’s ‘friends’ got out of it all unscathed and without paying a penny by the simple action of the Minister of Justice in Ottawa stepping in (on Stephen Harper’s orders?), and promoting Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett from the B.C. Supreme Court to the B.C Appeal Court. To prove his prowess in the matter, Stephen Harper then appointed Gordon Campbell to what is perhaps the highest diplomatic position a Canadian can hold Canadian High Commissioner in London.
In both cases, in B.C. and Alberta, the Stephen Harper Junta has used the courts and the administration of justice, I believe, to violate trust, to support alleged wrongdoers who might be found to be in serious fault or even criminally responsible, and to make justice in Canada a plaything of corrupt power.
I suggest that only a government powered by a psychopath could so viciously and openly attack the rule of law in Canada.
———
Contact Robin at: Robin Mathews [email protected]

Dear Free Speech Supporter,
To succinctly summarize the importance and meaning of freedom of speech is no small task. I have laboured on this short essay for many an hour trying to distil the essence down to where it might become 100% proof and with the light of a match burst into a flame of truth bright enough to expose the underlying deception that now exists in Canadian law with respect to this subject.
Please take the time to read it and ponder its implications and should the import of its plea hold meaning for you pass it along to others who you may feel could also benefit from reading it.
It was obviously written in my own defence but I’m hopeful that upon understanding all the implications of these unjust laws that you will be able to see the danger to all Canadians who value this crucial right.
Sincerely
Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
‘Digging to the root of the issues since 1998’
Freedom of Speech
by Arthur Topham
‘There’s no such thing as ‘Hate Speech.’
You either have FREE speech or you don’t it’s that simple.’
~Anonymous

Were I able to stand as Norman Rockwell’s iconic American citizen once stood, expressing one of the four basic inherent freedoms of democracy, I would have the following to say about the subject of freedom of speech.
Foremost is the realization of the dual nature of subject. There are two components to freedom of speech that form the basis for all the myriad variations on the theme of communication; one is the freedom to lie and deceive (both oneself and others) and the second (the most critical) is the freedom to speak the truth. When the freedom to lie and deceive gains the upper hand and establishes itself as the only freedom allowed within a society it signals the eventual demise of the remainder of that society’s freedoms as well and the beginning of a process of mass self-deception, denial and decay eventually leading to enslavement to false ideals which, ultimately, must result in the final death and destruction of the affected society or nation.
The issue of whether or not people ought to have unlimited freedom to express whatever thoughts and opinions they may hold is, at this important juncture in humanity’s evolvement toward universal freedom and peaceful co-existence, of the utmost and fundamental importance and will determine whether or not we survive both as a species and as free and independent individuals.
While this may sound at first like a rather preposterous and pretentious pronouncement to make nonetheless it bears urgent consideration given the relative and recent turn of events over the past century; ones which have accelerated all the major components of a nation’s (and a planet’s) essential nature political, economic, social, cultural and environmental to such a degree of intensity that the world is now facing a global dilemma of such scale that at no other time in our collective past have we had to face the harsh, impending realities that presently lay before us.
The litany of lies and deception and the magnitude of malfeasance on the part of our governments, our judiciaries, our religious institutions, coupled with the calculated, criminal complicity of the corporations and media, has reached a zenith of decadence and delusion and unless, as a collectively conscious and united whole, we the people of planet Earth begin to openly analyze and question the root causes of our combined quandary we will soon lose the one key able to unlock the mystery of the dismal human predicament we now find ourselves in.
That key is the individual’s ability to express their thoughts and ideas freely and without fear on any conceivable subject. It is not hyperbolical to state that this freedom is akin to one’s right to breath the common air that surrounds the planet or drink the liquid element we call water without which our bodies quickly cease to function. It’s synonymous with our right to eat healthy, vital, life-giving food that nourishes and sustains our physical self rather than being forced to consume adulterated, genetically modified food substitutes that are proven causes of disease and deformity in all living entities. It is parallel with one’s right and freedom to light a fire on a cold winter’s night to keep themselves warm or to seek shade when the sun’s beneficent rays become too hot to handle. Freedom of speech is therefore quintessential to our emotional, mental and spiritual health and well-being and cannot be allowed to be infringed upon by any organized body, be they legislators or lobbyists, for whatever reasons they might conjure up in their defence.
There are those who would scoff at pronouncements such as these and counter with endless argumentation, pleading that restrictions upon a person’s right to freedom of expression are necessary for the greater good of the public at large, all the while rolling out their reasons why this and that particular aspect of speech is dangerous or harmful to certain segments of society and therefore ought to be seen as a necessary compromise in order to protect whatever minority group that might be affected by the opinions or thoughts of others which they deem inimical to the interests of the aforesaid group. That is all part of the process of freedom of speech and ought to remain sacrosanct even though it is a plea for restrictions. This same sort of argument against limiting freedom of speech also uses such ruses as ‘a person cannot be allowed to yell ‘fire’ inside a crowded theatre or room’ in a vain effort to lend credence to their seemingly innocuous arguments for restricting speech yet at the same time they refuse to acknowledge the beneficial results that often can result from a person who senses a grave danger in the body politic itself and yells ‘be aware!’ via whatever medium of expression is available to them, be it a soap box, a song, a newspaper, a book or the Internet.
Where such proposed limitations cease to have meaning or validity and become a threat to every citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of speech is when they advocate the imposition of criminal charges such as are contained in sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code and in sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is here that the metaphoric Rubicon of reason and common sense has been crossed and double-crossed and tyranny begins. It is here that all of our combined freedoms end and Orwell’s fiction becomes fact. Thus the necessity to rid Canadian jurisprudence of these dangerous, undemocratic ‘hate crime’ laws that benefit only specified minority interests and penalize the fundamental freedoms of the vast majority.
Such is the pressing predicament that restrictions on freedom of speech pose; not only for the person who tries to warn others of impending threats to their (and other’s) well being but for those who, unbeknownst to themselves, are being led into lifestyles or linear patterns of thinking that ultimately are not beneficial to the planet or its inhabitants.
As the quote above this article clearly states, we either have freedom of speech or we don’t. There is no in-between stage; no dead zone of arbitrary discernment; no no-man’s-land of equivocation; no bardo plane of intermediary bluff that can be exploited and manipulated to the detriment of this fundamental right of all people everywhere and used to justify its limitations. All our freedoms rest upon this one. Never forget it.

NOTE: The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign interest censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada.
Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ trial in October by making a donation.
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.
Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to Arthur Topham and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,
January 3, 2013 was a good day in B.C. and across the nation for those who have taken up metaphorical arms in defence of Canada’s fundamental right to freedom of speech on the Internet.
Here in B.C. and out in Ontario those battling against the forces of media censorship and repression were, in both cases, successful in their efforts and thus, for once, I have only positive news to report.
I should preface this update with a short apology to some readers who were sent an alert yesterday indicating that I had unexpectedly been called to court. That was an error on my part due to some confusion arising from the previous bail hearing that took place on December 19, 2012 wherein I got the date for my next appearance mixed up. Call it a senior moment if you will. 🙂
During the last court appearance in December presiding Judge Church, after hearing arguments from both the Crown and Defence regarding the Crown’s rather strident and persistent effort to reimpose the original bail conditions that were placed on me by Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM back on May 16, 2012, reserved her judgement on the issue until January 3, 2013.
My lawyer Doug Christie attended by telephone from Victoria, B.C. and I and my wife were in the Quesnel Court room at 1:30 p.m. to hear Judge Church’s decision.
The Judge first gave an overview of the Crown’s arguments and those of Defence lawyer Mr. Christie before presenting her own position on the issue. According to Judge Church the Crown’s basic argument was that while I had legally resumed publishing on RadicalPress.com on November 2, 2012 I was still publishing material that the Crown felt was of the same calibre as that originally complained of by Agent X and Agent Y of B’nai Brith Canada. To back up Crown’s argument Crown Council Jennifer Johnston had submitted to Judge Church on December 19, 2012 a couple of screen shots taken from the radicalpress.com website that had supposed controversial headings which CC Johnston felt were significant enough that they warranted reinstating the original draconian restrictions that Cst Terry Wilson had unilaterally saddled me with on the day of my arrest in May.
Having considered these apparently pithy examples of willful promotion of hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ Judge Church went on to say that while the screen shots may have (as Crown was alleging), indicated an ‘undertone’ of hatred toward those of the Jewish faith, Crown had not gone so far as to state that the captured text was in fact hateful. Furthermore, Crown had not disclosed to Judge Church any additional corroborating information pertaining to the screen shots in question which Crown was alleging were displaying such sentiments and so, according to the Judge, she had no way of determining whether or not the screen shots or the accompanying articles were, in fact, contravening sec. 319(2) of the CC of Canada.
Judge Church then went on to review Defence council Doug Christie’s arguments which basically stated Crown was attempting to pre-judge the published materials before a trial was held to determine whether or not they were in truth a contravention of sec. 319(2). It was also established that I am, in fact, a publisher and that under Canada’s constitution I have the right to publish articles deemed to be of interest to the general public and until such time that said articles are proven in a court of law to have contravened Canada’s hate crime legislation that my right to publish should not be pre-emptively prohibited simply because of allegations of wrong doing by those who feel particular materials are wilfully promoting hatred toward an ethnic minority. Throughout the course of her comments the Judge referred to the cases cited by both Crown and Defence during the previous hearing on December 19, 2012.
Another issue that had come up on December 19, 2012 was that of Disclosure. The Crown had then argued that they were withholding disclosure from my attorney because of a breach of protocol that had occurred back in the summer when a confidential document released to Doug Christie was later found to have been posted on a third party website (FreeDominion.ca). The Judge went on to describe the event which had to do with what is called a ‘Warned Statement’ which was a digitally recorded conversation between myself and the arresting officer Cst Terry Wilson on the day of my arrest. The Crown alleged that the breach (committed by me due to ignorance of the nature of the document) posed a serious threat to the safety of the two complainants in the case and for that reason Crown had filed a further application demanding that my lawyer not provide me with any further disclosure because I might intentionally publish it or give it to someone else who might publish it and in the process endanger the complainants. CC Johnston had cited the case of the Basi-Virk Trial involving the BC Rail/BC Liberal government scandal as reasoning for her allegations.
The Judge then went on to state that the case law cited by Crown in fact dealt with examples where secondary parties who were testifying may have been at risk but that in my case it was information which I personally had given to Cst. Terry Wilson and was, as my lawyer had stated, not of the same nature and certainly did not pose any direct threat to either of the two individuals who had complained to the RCMP. As such the Judge did not feel that the Crown’s argument that Mr. Christie be restricted in sharing disclosure with me was valid.
Judge Church also considered Doug Christie’s counter argument that it would be an unreasonable and onerous position to be placed in were he not allowed to share the information in any disclosure with his client unless I was under his direct supervision given the fact that he was in Victoria and I was 700 km away in Quesnel. Mr. Christie had indicated on December 19, 2012 that he and his client would be more than willing to sign an undertaking prohibiting me from disclosing any further confidential information in order to insure that no such breach occurred a second time. The Judge was able to see the logic of Mr. Christie’s arguments while at the same time dismissing Crown’s position that the breach in question could have endangered the two complainants and went on to say that while she would not be imposing the two original conditions that prohibited me from publishing on radicalpress.com or writing articles for publication wherever I so chose she would be issuing an order that would make it illegal for me republish any further disclosure. At this point she also stating she would not impose upon Mr. Christie the condition that he be in attendance whenever disclosing confidential documents to me.
Having read out her decision regarding the matters at hand the Judge reinstated the new bail conditions and asked me if I understood them. I acknowledged that I did. As such here are the new bail conditions under which I am now to legally abide by:
CONDITION ONE: You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
CONDITION TWO: You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Agent Y and Agent X except as follows: (a) while in attendance at court; (b) through legal counsel.
CONDITION THREE: You shall not possess any weapon as defined in Section 2 of the criminal Code except for purposes directly related to your employment.
CONDITION FOUR: You shall not distribute, circulate or share all or any part of the Crown disclosure material with any person or organization.
CONDITION FIVE: You shall not publish or post all or any part of the Crown disclosure material on any internet site that can be read by the general public.
Having listened to the conditions of the new undertaking and given my consent to obey them the Judge then concluded the hearing. My wife and I then went for coffee and returned later to the Court Registry office where the undertaking was waiting for my signature. After signing it and obtaining a copy we left the building.
Included in the new undertaking was a notice stating that I would appear in court on April 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm PT in Quesnel for the preliminary hearing.
For some unknown reason Crown Council Jennifer Johnston was absent from the court room and another assistant Crown Council was sitting in for her.
So by all indications it looks like I will finally have some temporary respite from all the legal machinations that have been occurring over the past three months and I can focus on raising funds and adding further information to radicalpress.com that will assist others in understanding both the importance of this case and why it is that Canadians must sit up and pay much more attention to what these foreign lobbyists are doing to wreck our inherent right to freedom of expression and censor any and debate that focuses on the criminal and racist actions of the state of Israel and its dangerous and supremacist ideology known as Zionism.

Sincerely

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
‘Digging to the root of the issues since 1998’