Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Harry AbramsandThe League For Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canadav.Arthur TophamAndRADICALPRESS.comFile Number: T1360/9008

RE: REPLY TO ABRAMS AND B’NAI BRITH CANADA’S REQUEST FORJUDICIAL NOTICE BY THE RESPONDENT AND RADICALPRESS.COMBY EMAIL

Arthur TophamPub/EdThe Radical Press4633 Barkerville HwyQuesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8Email:radical@radicalpress.com July 2, 2009 Nancy LafontantRegistry Officer Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.caDear Nancy Lafontant,

RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.comFile Number: T1360/9008

Please find enclosed my response to the Tribunal respecting the Complainants’ JudicialNotice contained in their

June 23, 2009

letter to the Tribunal in reply to my

June 16, 2009

Statement of Particulars.

I will begin on a positive note by thanking the Complainants for bringing to the attentionof the Tribunal and the Commission the fact, as originally expressed by Harry Abramsand the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada in their initial complaint to theCommission, that they do contend that I and my website are posting “articles and items . .. extremely likely to incite hatred and contempt against Jews and citizens of Israel.”All the recent backsliding and denial and obfuscation emanating from Mr. Daniel Poulin,Commission counsel, rejecting outright my claims that the wording of the Commission intheir Statement of Particulars of

March 11, 2009

had been altered to the point of being soabstruse as to be illogical and meaningless has now been reaffirmed by the Complainantsthemselves. As such I would hope that the Tribunal might reserve a special place withintheir memories for this fact and that they not forget their own complicity in lending,however tacitly it might be construed, their support to the contentions of the Commissionregarding the manner in which Mr. Poulin expressed his interpretation of the ‘ISSUES”in this case.Now that we have established once again that it is “Jews and citizens of Israel” who areat issue here rather than “Jews and non-white[sic]” I will move on to the next contentiousissue; that being the Complainants’ latest attempt to control and manipulate the terms of reference of the Tribunal and the basic right of all Canadian citizens to a fair and openhearing via the subterfuge of a “Judicial Notice” designed to forestall and prohibit theintroduction and analysis of any and all pertinent data relevant to the aforesaid complaint.Under said notice the Complainants, after clarifying the Commission’s erroneousStatement of Particulars of

March 11, 2009

, begin by stating:

“In order to facilitate and expedite the proceedings and not spend needless hearing timere-arguing hateful themes for which there are already ample precedent, we wish toremind the Tribunal of the Claude Pensa interim decision of May 25, 1998 in Citron V. Zundel http://www.rudemacedon.ca/0305/030519-HRT.html “...That the dignity of the complainants and the proceedings should not be diminished byallowing the Respondent to prove or test the truth of inherently offensive comments...”

This ruse on the part of the Complainants, by any other wording, would still smell asmalodorous as it does in its present context and is an affront not only to natural law andcommon sense but also to every conceivable and cherished notion of what constitutesfreedom in a democratic society. It is, I suggest, the absolute hallmark of all that is mostmalicious, repugnant and, yes, contemptible, in the long litany of wilful attempts on the part of the political Zionists to deny, discredit, demean, malign and devalue their opponent’s facts and arguments and thus, by contrary, indirect association, disassociateand isolate their particular and peculiar perspective on human events, be it historic or otherwise, in a disengenuous attempt to place their prerogatives and opinions in someform of exclusive, elite, chauvinistic classification beyond either reproach or question.

What’s plainly evident in this recurring theme of pleading as though innocents whose“dignity” is somehow being “diminished” by the threat of possible exposure to the truth(as first suggested when the issue of the

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

mysteriously disappeared from the files of the Commission) is nothing more than anunabashed, blatant, arrogant and transparent attempt to disparage not only theRespondent in this case but the democratic principles upon which our justice system itself is founded.To suggest, as the Complainants obviously are attempting to do in this most recent judicial move, that my perspective on the issues here are not worthy of consideration isthe height of chutzpah and needs to be taken as such by any impartial observer in thiscomplaint, which, it is assumed, the Tribunal is.This isn’t a case, as the Complainants would have the Tribunal believe, of someonequestioning the location of Vancouver, B.C. or Toronto, Ontario. Nor is it a question of whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow or when the Tzar and his family weremassacred in the basement of a house in Ekaterinberg, Russia by Bolshevik Jews. Thesefacts and events are established by common notoriety and need not be rehashed for the purpose of establishing their occurrence and their location in both time and space.What the Complainants would have the Tribunal believe to be “hateful themes” are infact, the evidence of centuries of censorship which those responsible for such restrictionof thought are now desperately trying to prevent from reaching the light of day. Why this phenomenon should be occurring at the current stage of history is a complex problem initself but for the purposes of this pithy reply it must suffice to say that Westerncivilization over the past century and longer has for the most part depended upon theZionist-controlled media for its information on matters pertaining to history, science,literature and general cultural trends, etc. It was only with the advent of the Internet andthe sudden access to information which had formerly been supressed by the Zionistmedia cartel that the controversial subjects now being ferociously and violently attacked by the Zionists are making headway and gaining increase credence at a pace hithertounheard of or conceivable prior to the freedom of the world wide web. In this sense weare living in propitious times marked by quantum leaps in information, much of which, prior to now was unable to surface for lack of an independent and free medium.This was the thesis contained in my initial article which accompanied my formalResponse to the charges which the Complainants laid against me and website. Thatarticle,

Killing the Hundredth Monkey

, clearly delineated what is happening around theworld today. It’s poignant point was that it’s too late now for the censors, aka theZionists, to think that they will continue to control information vital to a greater and moreholistic understanding of how the world works. It’s as impossible as it is for the risingsun to suddenly stop its predestined course across the heavens. Yet, I suggest, this is precisely what the Complainants are attempting to do here in their efforts at hijacking thehearing process by this suspect ploy of enjoining the Tribunal to lend a sympathetic ear totheir machinations.It is my purpose to present the facts and the truth that the Zionist media refuses to publish. When I first set out upon a publishing career back in 1998 I was ignorant of political Zionism and presupposed that it was just the vested corporate interests who