Love for Life

From: The Radical Press
Date: February 5, 2008 10:42:26 PM PST (CA)
To: RADICAL PRESS
Subject: Spoof or Proof? the Jewish Tribune's Jan 31 article on Levant & Steyn

Dear Radical Reader,

Below the initial “spoof” article entitled, “The Gentile Tribune” is the original muse that spurred me on to pen the first one. It is from the January 31, 2008 edition of The Jewish Tribune and purports to be a true assessment of Ezra Levant’s and Mark Steyn’s cases with the Alberta Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I would encourage readers to look at the original article first in order to fully enjoy the juxtaposition of that writer’s sophistry with the actual facts as they pertain to my case and that of PEJ.org’s.

Spoof or proof? You decide.

Feedback is always welcome, even from non-Gentiles. :-)

Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
radical @ radicalpress.com
http://www.radicalpress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

------------------------------------------------------------

January 31, 2008
THE GENTILE TRIBUNE
CIRCULATION 33,000,000
Largest Gentile Weekly in Canada

The human rights commission deception

By Arthur Topham

At the time of writing, Arthur Topham, a radical writer and publisher of the RadicalPress.com website and former publisher of the alternative monthly tabloid, The Radical, has been summoned before the Canadian Human Rights Commission to answer a complaint from a Victoria, B.C. representative of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, Harry Abrams. Ten months ago Topham had been found by Abrams to be publishing articles critical of the state of Israel and its underlying political ideology, Zionism. These overt criticisms of Israel and that state’s ongoing treatment of its non-Jewish citizens and the surrounding Palestinian people apparently were of such a blatantly candid nature that they incited ‘rage’ within the pro-Zionist organization known as B’nai Brith Canada.

In addition to this, the Canadian Human Rights Commission had also begun an identically similar case against the PEJ.org website of Al Rycroft and its former chief editor and essayist Christopher Cook. This is also the result of a complaint by the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the very same Harry Abrams who, like the case of Topham and the RadicalPress.com are alleging that both these websites and their columnists are spreading “hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel”. Do tell.

Actually, one first rational reaction to this complaint might well be to wonder how “Zionophobia” can possibly exist – phobias are irrational fears; not concerns based on experience, observation and history. In any event Topham and Cook are showing no signs of backing down. Topham, as befits a radical anarchist with strong convictions and a passion for justice for all, has demonstrated an eagerness to defend freedom of speech; and has let the Canadian Human Rights Commission know, in no uncertain terms, that he feels they should not have even considered accepting Abrams’ and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada’s complaint. Nor should it have done so. See his Response to the CHRC at: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629

NOT JUST A SALESMAN FOR ELEVATOR ADVERTISING

The son and grandson of Jewish ancestry, Harry Abrams is not just a salesman for elevator advertising in Victoria, B.C. but is also the B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada (in which capacity he stated his intent to hunt down other Canadian websites for possible complaints to the commission. “We have to show that Canadian law extends to the Internet as well as the conventional printed word.” Despite the grandiose name the B’nai Brith isn’t the overarching publicly perceived benevolent “society” that most Canadians believe it to be.

Abrams, as B.C.’s representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, strongly identifies himself with this Jewish advocacy group and its offshoot the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which was founded by the B’nai Brith back in 1913. It is, however, hard to find any real record of accomplishment for human rights in general (beyond the mere fact of their existence) by these groups; but it does leave a strong impression of activism on the part of Abrams.

A sense of his views on human rights and free speech can also be gained from a quote by world renowned Jewish author Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology who stated that the B’nai Brith’s ADL is "...one of the ugliest, most powerful pressure groups in the U.S...Its primary commitment is to use any technique, however dishonest and disgraceful, in order to defame and silence and destroy anybody who dares to criticize the Holy State ('Israel')." Israel über alles…. Setting aside the baffling question of why the Canadian Human Rights Commission is treating Abrams’ complaint seriously, one must ask why an aggrieved activist would use Human Rights Commissions in Canada to complain about the exercise of free speech.

There are several answers.

Firstly, human rights commissions don’t just have a bias against the accused – they’re stacked against them. As Topham observed in his January 3, 2008 “Response” to the CHRC: “It appears that out of 46 Active and Past cases, of which the CHRC Tribunal ruled on 37, not a single respondent has ever won a Section 13 case! 100% of the respondents in every case were Caucasian. 98% of cases were brought against poor and/or working class respondents. 90.7% of the respondents were not represented by lawyers. From out of these 37 cases a total of $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensations since 2003. And to compound this amazing set of statistics we see that 35 respondents have been given lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist orders) and if said orders are breached these people could face up to 5 years in prison!” Would you bet on Topham’s bucking this spectacular 100 per cent conviction rate? “Sentence first, verdict afterwards,” declares the queen in Alice in Wonderland. Canada’s is already there, as these statistics illustrate and at the CHRC, it’s “Verdict first, trial afterwards.” So Topham and RadicalPress.com are guilty and Christopher Cook and PEJ.org are guilty because that’s the only verdict there is.

Secondly, human rights commissions are cheap – very often, the plaintiff needs no legal counsel (unlike the defendant), and might very well have his expenses refunded if he does have a lawyer in his corner. The defendant cannot expect any such beneficence, and will probably expect to ring up the same degree of expenses ($50,000 plus) that they might in a general civil action.

AVOID EMBARRASSMENT

Thirdly, in a regular civil action in a real court, there is the process of discovery or disclosure; whereby the plaintiff and the defendant can demand to see each other’s records. Normally, in the courtrooms of Canada, this is where the plaintiffs back off or else are exposed. A prime example of this is found in the recent federal case of Lemire vs Warman where it was discovered that Warman was actually posting vile hate messages to Lemire’s website Freedomsite.org and then turning around and laying charges against Lemire. Warman of course was a lawyer for the CHRC and is backed financially by B’nai Brith Canada a pro-Zionist advocacy group and is now the focus of extreme negative unction and embarrassment to the CHRC as is Dean Steacy, the head “hate-crimes” Investigator for the commission who also was found to be engaging in similar tactics. In short, the B’nai Brith and Abrams have demonstrated themselves to be nothing more than half-disguised shills for the Israeli Zionist political front.

Again in a general court, there is the crucial and ancient tradition of being able to cross-examine witnesses and let the defendant see what evidence is arrayed against him, so that he or she has a chance to refute it. This, like the process of discovery, can lead to all sorts of embarrassment for the plaintiff…but in a human rights commission hearing this need not happen. Instead, to protect the plaintiff from such indignities, he can testify without having to face cross examination, or indeed, need not actually face his victim, the defendant at all.

There are clear signs that supporters and sympathizers for political Zionism and the state of Israel here in Canada are deeply interested in using Canada’s human rights commissions as the new vehicle for ‘courtroom censorship’ of any criticism of either of these two foreign entities. The prime indicator is obviously this latest assault upon two of Canada’s leading critics of Israeli actions in the Middle East, RadicalPress.com and PEJ.org.

As an aside; Abrams’ American cousin, the ADL has been unmasked by M.C. Piper in an Exclusive to the American Free Press. In an article entitled, “Ashcroft Wants Domestic Spying Revived – Quickly” Piper writes, “In the 1950s maverick New York publisher Lyle Stuart (who is himself Jewish) enraged the ADL by issuing a series of published reports that unmasked the ADL's role in helping finance and publicize a rag-tag "neo-Nazi" organization that the ADL proclaimed the vanguard of a rising "Nazi threat." What makes the ADL's collaboration with the FBI more disconcerting is that, based on evidence that has emerged through a variety of sources, there is no question that the ADL functions as an adjunct of Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad. Former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky reported in his book, “The Other Side of Deception”, that while writing his earlier book, “By Way of Deception”, he had hesitated in reporting "the direct links the Mossad had with . . . the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith . . ." because he feared that Americans might rise up against the ADL and the American Jewish community which the ADL purports to represent in outrage at the activities of the Mossad.”

A PROFOUND ERROR

There is a message that Canada’s human rights commissions need to understand very clearly. Yes, they were formed to fight discrimination on individual cases only – cases like denying a job to a woman that she is capable of performing, or against a landlord who decides not to rent an available apartment to someone on the basis of their race. The original intent was not to let there be any limits on free speech.

Unfortunately, while the thoughts and opinions of people like Ernst Zundel were misrepresented and vilified and subjected to undemocratic, draconian measures by Canada’s courts and human rights commissions and the Zionist-controlled media back in the 1990s, leading to the incarceration of Mr. Zundel in a foreign prison cell for expressing his right to freedom of speech, now is the time to rectify that deplorable action and demand Zundel’s release from the clutches of Zionist-held Germany. The monster we thought we had banished from our midst has in fact morphed into a Frankenstein of even greater proportions (HRCs) and is running rampant across the nation as we write.

George Orwell in 1984 observes that “freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Indeed, freedom of inquiry and the ability to engage in rational discussions about anything are at the heart of all our other freedoms. Even a single-party dictator for life is conceding a remarkable degree of freedom (with everything that flows from it) if he truly permits a free and open press to operate in his country. It isn’t too difficult to argue that the single most important human right is the right to argue and debate about everything. Any attempt to limit this right is to place every other freedom in serious jeopardy.

If our human rights commissions are serious about human rights at all; their only logical reaction to the complaints against Topham and his RadicalPress.com or against PEJ.org and Al Rycroft and his former editor Christopher would have been to immediately dismiss them as being totally without merit. As they have refused to do this, it is clear that they require urgent and serious reform and a dramatic overhaul in their personnel…or else mandatory remedial training in civics and history. Until these happen, Topham’s and Cook’s defiance are only the beginning.
-----------

Arthur Topham is an international expert on Israeli terrorism and political Zionism.

Reprinted with permission of The Radical Press website: http://www.radicalpress.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/PDF/jt310108.pdf

The human rights commission jihad

By John Thompson

At the time of writing, Ezra Levant, a conservative journalist and until recently publisher of the Western Standard, has been summoned before the Alberta Human Rights Commission to answer a complaint from a Calgary Imam, Syed Soharwardy. Two years ago Levant had republished the cartoons from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that had ignited a pre-planned and coordinated display of carefully inculcated ‘rage’ across the Islamic World. (Also see the Mackenzie Institute’s The Cartoon Jihad from February 2006).

In addition to this, the BC Human Rights Commission has begun a similar case against Maclean’s Magazine and the essayist Mark Steyn; while Ontario’s Commission and the federal body are considering additional actions. This is a result of a complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress, who allege that the magazine and columnist are spreading “hatred and Islamophobia.” Do tell.

Actually, one first rational reaction to this complaint might well be to wonder how ‘Islamophobia’ can possibly exist – phobias are irrational fears; not concerns based on experience, observation and history. In any event, Steyn and Maclean’s are showing no signs of backing down. Levant, as befits a conservative with strong convictions and a passion for debate, has demonstrated an eagerness to defend freedom of speech; and has let the Alberta Human Rights Commission know, in no uncertain terms, that he feels they should not have even considered accepting Soharwardy’s complaint. Nor should it have done so.

NOT JUST AN IMAM

The son and grandson of Pakistani clerics, Syed Soharwardy is not just an Imam at the al-Madinah Islamic Centre and Mosque in Calgary, but also is the founder of the ‘Islamic Supreme Council of Canada’ (where he said he hoped to organize a ‘Muslim vote bank’). Despite the grandiose name the council isn’t an overarching confederation of learned Canadian Islamic clerics.

Soharwardy has also been identified in the Canadian media as the founder of the Muslim Free Press in 2006, and the Islamic Court of Civil Justice from 2004. It is, however, hard to find any real record of accomplishment (beyond the mere fact of their existence) by these groups; but it does leave a strong impression of activism on the part of Soharwardy. A sense of his views on Islam can also be gained from a quote he gave to the Calgary Herald in January 2004: “Sharia cannot be customized for specific countries. These universal divine laws are for all peoples of all countries for all time.” Islam über alles…. Setting aside the baffling question of why the Alberta Human Rights Commission is treating Soharwardy’s complaint seriously, one must ask why an aggrieved activist would use Human Rights Commissions in Canada to complain about the exercise of free speech.

There are several answers.

Firstly, human rights commissions don’t just have a bias against the accused – they’re stacked against them. As Steyn observed in a January 2008 column in Maclean’s: In the three decades of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal’s existence, not a single “defendant” has been “acquitted.” Would you bet on Maclean’s bucking this spectacular 100 per cent conviction rate? “Sentence first, verdict afterwards,” declares the queen in Alice in Wonderland. Canada’s not quite there yet, but at the Human Rights Commission, it’s “Verdict first, trial afterwards.” So I’m guilty and Ken Whyte’s guilty and Maclean’s is guilty because that’s the only verdict there is.

Secondly, human rights commissions are cheap – very often, the plaintiff needs no legal counsel (unlike the defendant), and might very well have his expenses refunded if he does have a lawyer in his corner. The defendant cannot expect any such beneficence, and will probably expect to ring up the same degree of expenses ($50,000 plus) that they might in a general civil action.

AVOID EMBARRASSMENT

Thirdly, in a regular civil action in a real court, there is the process of discovery or disclosure; whereby the plaintiff and the defendant can demand to see each other’s records. Normally, in the courtroom Jihad in the US (and to a lesser extent in Canada), this is where the plaintiffs back off. In the case of CAIR in the US, the courtroom is where it was discovered that – instead of the vast legions of American Muslims the group claimed to represent, that it only had a few thousand members across the United States; and that a significant share of its money came from Wahhabi sources in Saudi Arabia. In short, CAIR was demonstrated to be nothing more than a half-disguised shill for the Jihad’s political front. In Canada, sticking to the human rights commissions would be a way of avoiding such embarrassment.

Again in a general court, there is the quaint but ancient tradition of being able to cross-examine witnesses and let the defendant see what evidence is arrayed against him, so that he or she has a chance to refute it. This, like the process of discovery, can lead to all sorts of embarrassment for the plaintiff…but in a human rights commission hearing this need not happen. Instead, to protect the plaintiff from such indignities, he can testify without having to face crossexamination, or indeed, need not actually face his victim, er, the defendant at all.

There are clear signs that supporters and sympathizers of militant Islam are deeply interested in using Canada’s human rights commissions as the new vehicle for the ‘courtroom Jihad’. One indicator came from the Toronto Star on June 26, 2006, in an article by Faisal Kutty; then vice-chair of the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-Canada) and general counsel for the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association. The article Good intentions are not enough argues that human rights commissions need more funding, expanded powers and increased powers of punishment.

As an aside; CAIR-Canada’s American parent, CAIR, is an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding case in the US and several of its founding/senior members have been convicted in US courts on terrorism related charges. CAIR and CAIR-Canada have a history, however, of suing critics who raise these issues; though the cases are usually dropped by the organizations once the disclosure/discovery stage is reached. Several erstwhile defendants in these cases suspect CAIR is most anxious to conceal its true sources of funding.

A PROFOUND ERROR

There is a message that Canada’s human rights commissions need to understand very clearly. Yes, they were formed to fight discrimination on individual cases only – cases like denying a job to a woman that she is capable of performing, or against a landlord who decides not to rent an available apartment to someone on the basis of their race. The original intent was not to let there be any limits on free speech.

Unfortunately, while the likes of Ernst Zundel and the neo-Nazis were as welcome as skunks at a garden party, using human rights commissions to limit them back in the 1990s was a profound error, and it may be time to undo it. Not because of any sympathy for Zundel, but rather because we have created a monster.

George Orwell in 1984 observes that “freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Indeed, freedom of inquiry and the ability to engage in rational discussions about anything are at the heart of all our other freedoms. Even a single-party dictator for life is conceding a remarkable degree of freedom (with everything that flows from it) if he truly permits a free and open press to operate in his country. It isn’t too difficult to argue that the singlemost important human right is the right to argue and debate about everything. Any attempt to limit this right is to place every other freedom in serious jeopardy.

If our human rights commissions are serious about human rights at all; their only logical reaction to the complaints against Ezra Levant or against Maclean’s and Mark Steyn would have been to immediately dismiss them as being totally without merit. As they have refused to do this, it is clear that they require urgent and serious reform and a dramatic overhaul in their personnel…or else mandatory remedial training in civics and history. Until these happen, Levant’s and Steyn’s defiance are only the beginning.

--------------

John Thompson is an international expert on terrorism.
Reprinted with permission of The Mackenzie

Newsletter, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com .