Carpay: Redford should restore right to free expression
Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 22 December 2012 06:18
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:



In fact, considering some of the bizarre rulings of these commissions,
a strong case can be made for abolishing these minority-favouring,
Majority suppressing "human rights" acts altogether.

Paul Fromm






* PHOTOS ( 1 )



When it comes to protecting freedom of expression, not all Canadian
human rights laws are created equal. With the federal government
having repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act,
Alberta’s remains one of only three provincial human rights statues
in Canada that undercuts free expression.
Democracy does not work when citizens lack the freedom to debate ideas
and policies. Free expression serves not only the cause of expression
itself, but also the causes of those who advocate change in our wider
social, political and economic environment. And the right to free
expression means nothing — absolutely nothing — if it applies only
to speech that most people want to hear. Often, the very point of free
expression is to make us feel uncomfortable.
By making “discriminatory” publications illegal, human rights laws
in Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan subvert free public discourse about
issues such as immigration, criminal justice, sexual morality, foreign
policy, polygamy, social assistance and aboriginal policy.
These issues often require making references to ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation and gender. Because these are prohibited grounds of
discrimination under the act, one can break the law simply by publicly
espousing an opinion on school curriculum, eligibility for social
assistance, foreign policy in the Middle East, or trade with China.
The potential violations are limitless.
Indeed, this is already happening. In Alberta, public discourse has
resulted in proceedings being taken against Stephen Boissoin (for a
letter to the editor regarding the school curriculum), Bishop Fred
Henry (for stating his church’s teaching on marriage) and Ezra
Levant (for publishing Danish cartoons of Mohammed in a magazine).
In B.C., proceedings were brought against Maclean’s magazine (for
publishing excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone) and
comedian Guy Earle (for responding to hecklers during his standup
In Saskatchewan, William Whatcott was ordered to pay $17,500 to four
complainants whose feelings were “hurt” by flyers he distributed.
(This case was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada and a
decision is forthcoming).
These individuals, among others, have been forced to spend thousands
(or tens of thousands) of dollars to defend against human rights
complaints that were filed purely in respect of the honest expression
of their opinion.
Not only are people subject to prosecution for stating their honest
opinion, they are also subject to prosecution for stating what is
objectively true. Truth, like fair comment, is an absolute defence to
a lawsuit for defamation. The checks and balances inherent in common
law provide fairness between plaintiffs and defendants, but are
excluded from human rights legislation.
Advocating genocide and counselling a criminal offence are already
prohibited by the Criminal Code. Causing actual harm is answerable
under the laws of defamation and negligence. To prosecute for
“insults” or “hurt feelings,” however, casts a chill on every
citizen’s freedom to express opinions on issues important to them.

Some argue that restricting freedom of expression is a necessary price
to pay for ending discrimination. But 11 Canadian jurisdictions prove
this is not so. The federal government, all provinces east of
Saskatchewan, as well as the three territories, show us that it is not
necessary to undermine the citizen’s free speech rights in order to
legislate against discrimination in employment, housing and services.
For example, Nunavut, Ontario and Manitoba indicate that
discriminatory signs, notices and publications are prohibited only in
relation to employment, housing, facilities, goods, services,
contracts and other areas where the legislation seeks to address
actual discrimination. This means that it’s illegal for an employer
or landlord to run an ad saying “women need not apply,” but there
are no restrictions on the contents of a controversial letter to the
editor or an unpopular pamphlet.
Alison Redford recognized the problem in 2011, when she first ran for
premier. She promised to restore free expression to citizens by
repealing Section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights Act. She has yet to
keep her promise to Albertans.

Calgary lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for
Constitutional Freedoms. ( )

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Read more:

Unsubscribe / Change Profile:
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political Prisoner Arthur
Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 22 December 2012 06:09
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political
Prisoner Arthur Topham in "Hate" Case


Radical Press Legal Update #7

Yesterday’s Bail Hearing was a three hour session in the Quesnel
Court house.

The regular Judge who has been presiding over the various applications
thus far was unable to attend and instead we had a female Judge by the
name of M. Church who heard the application.

Crown of course had first kick at the cat and Crown Counsel Jennifer
Johnston opened her remarks by giving Judge Church a brief overview of
the case which included her reasons for why Crown has still not
provided my lawyer with full disclosure in the case.

According to Johnston the period from my initial arrest on May 16,
2012 until October 9, 2012 had proven to be an insufficient time
period in order to get enough evidence together so that an Indictment
could be handed down by the October 9 deadline and that, apparently,
somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure.

After the October 9 deadline I was no longer under the original bail
conditions that restricted me from posting on my website although for
some odd reason I didn’t become aware of this fact until close to 3
weeks after the fact .

The Crown eventually got their sworn information on November 5, 2012
and notified my lawyer that there would be a call date set for Nov. 6
where I was to appear in court. That date was subsequently changed to
the 8th of November as Doug Christie was out in Saskatchewan attending
to another case and couldn’t appear via telephone on the 6th. It was
Crown’s letter to Mr. Christie on Nov. 5th that also informed him
that Crown had asked for an endorsed warrant that would allow Crown to
have all of the original bail conditions reinstated.

When I appeared on November 8, 2012 the Judge listened to both sides
of the arguments and ruled that only some of the original conditions
would remain i.e., those concerning my order not to have any contact
with the two knaves (Warman and Abrams) who laid the alleged complaint
to the RCMP and also the cops hanging on to my seized firearms. At the
same time he set a new date of December 13, 2012 when Mr. Christie
could be in court to represent me and Crown would be given the
opportunity to argue for the reinstatement of the additional
restrictions originally imposed on me by Det – Cst Terry Wilson on
the day I got out of jail.

Of course December 13, 2012 proved to be bad timing weather wise and
my lawyer was unable to fly into Quesnel that day so again a decision
on Crown’s application was delayed for another week which brought it
up to December 19, 2012 which was yesterday.

After running through that time line Crown then began their argument
for wanting to reinstate the additional Orwellian restraints that
would prohibit me from posting articles anywhere on the Internet
available to the general public or to allow anyone else to post on any
of my other websites that were owned by me.

Just prior to commencing her argument Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston
told Judge Church that unfortunately she hadn’t been able to provide
Mr. Christie with the big fat 1″ thick bail disclosure document
because she had been informed by Det – Cst Terry Wilson that when
the Indictment was handed down the National Post had published an
article on the case which contained statements that the reporter had
gleaned from another website called Those statements
were from what is called a “Warned” statement which is considered
by the courts to be part of disclosure and therefore confidential
information that is not supposed to be given out to the public. The
Warned statement was a digital voice recording that Det – Cst Terry
Wilson had made of his conversation with me just prior to my release
from jail on May 16, 2012. Why IT was given to my lawyer when all the
other disclosure documents are still being withheld by Crown is still
a mystery to both myself and Mr. Christie but in the case of this
particular document when I received a copy of it I didn’t realize it
was confidential and had so I had shared it with an associate in a
private email and unbeknownst to myself failed to notify them that it
was confidential.

Anyhow a couple of quotes were taken from it and posted in the
National Post and that was the big reason, according to Jennifer
Johnston why she was refusing to divulge any more disclosure materials
to Mr. Christie. This issue had come up on Dec. 13 when Crown was
arguing before Judge Morgan that a second application had been filed
regarding the matter of the illegal disclosure but no agreement could
be found at the time and Mr. Christie had refused to agree to it.

At this point Crown told Judge Church that she would be willing to let
Mr. Christie take a look at the bail disclosure document even though
Crown’s application had not be resolved but that he would have to
give it back at the end of the hearing! All of this was the typical
Catch-22 scenarios that have been playing out since day one of this

The Judge obviously knew that Mr. Christie couldn’t be expected to
argue against something he hadn’t even seen so after a bit of
discussion it was agreed that Crown would give Mr. Christie the
disclosure document and a short 15 recess would be called so that he
and I would have an opportunity to take a look at what Crown was
planning to use in their argument for reinstating the original harsh
bail conditions on me.

It only took about 5 minutes of perusing the document to realize what
was going to be the Crown’s argument and we quickly went back and
let the clerk know that the recess should end as soon as possible and
court resume. Mr. Christie was well aware of the time constraints and
needed every minute for his arguments.

Court resumed and Johnston began her argument that I had been
publishing all these articles, updates, etc. since November 2, 2012
(legally, mind you) and then proceeded to go through individual posts
selecting various quotes to back up her position. It was the standard
Zionist double-speak argument that posts were continuing to spread
hate toward the Jews and Zionists and were attacking unfairly Det -Cst
Terry Wilson and his partner-in-crime Cst Normandie Levas and thus
possibly endangering their safety! [Can you believe it! Armed police
afraid of a now unarmed, Internet dissident and blogger. In
politically correct Canada, the oppressors always cry that they are so
afraid of the victims. -- Paul Fromm]

This went on until about 3 p.m. when she finally concluded her remarks
and a break was taken before Mr. Christie was given time to present
his arguments.

The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr.
Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court
issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor myself would
disclose any confidential information to any third parties not
directly connected to the case and definitely not for publication.

Doug then commenced his argument with a bountiful supply of case law
references and quickly outlined for the Judge some precedents which
included the legal right for publishers and writers to criticize both
Jews and Zionists citing articles in various mainstream publications
like the New York Times and other Zionist controlled media. His point
being that no particular group is exempt from criticism and that
includes Jews or those who support political Zionism. Regarding my
criticisms of the RCMP he also pointed out to the court that the RCMP
were certainly not above criticism and given their public image of
late he didn’t feel Crown’s argument in this regard was worthy of

He also made it crystal clear that what Crown was attempting to do
flew in the face any and all statutes currently within the Canadian
legal system. By that I mean Crown’s attempt to curtail my Charter
Rights to freedom of expression and access to the Internet prior to my
case being heard in a court of law and a decision being handed down as
to whether or not I did in fact publish materials that were ultimately
deemed to be “willful promotion of hatred” as contained in Sec.
319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code.

To a priori assume that whatever I am publishing is “hatred” and
then ask the court to impose such severe curtailments upon my Charter
rights prior to being tried is verboten and should not be considered
as a reasonable argument.

During Crown’s argument Johnston had cited the Basi-Virk Trial (of
all trials!) to back up some of her comments regarding the need to
protect witnesses. In this instances she was trying to correlate my
Warned statement conversation with Det – Cst Terry Wilson with that
of secondary witnesses in the Basi-Verk case. When Doug came to this
he quickly pointed out to the Judge the vast difference between
witness evidence by anonymous third parties and statements directly
given to the arresting officer by the accused as was the case in point
regarding Crown’s argument.

One by one Mr. Christie countered Crown's arguments and this went on
until around 4:15 p.m. at which time Mr. Christie concluded his
remarks by informing the Judge that he had a plane to catch before 5
p.m. and that he would have to stop. Doug asked me at this point to
call the airport to confirm the exact time when the plane was leaving
so I had to leave the court room for about five minutes.

While I was gone Crown apparently tried to refute all of Doug’s
arguments and told the Judge that because I was charged with a
“Hate” crime that Crown could then basically impose whatever
restrictions they wanted to on me. The Judge apparently wasn’t
convinced and just when I got back into the court room I heard her
telling Crown and Defence that she would be considering the arguments
and submitting a request to another body (not sure which one at this
point) for further clarification come early January and then after
that she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision.

So basically there will be no further bail conditions imposed on
myself until January of 2013 at the earliest. We quickly packed up our
things and drove Doug out to the airport where he bid us a fond fair

For now we will finally have a couple of weeks grace in order to relax
a bit and enjoy the Christmas season.


NOTE: Out of necessity I am forced to ask for financial assistance in
this ongoing battle with the censors. Due to the fact that the Crown
is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able
to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand
before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial
assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to
rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses. The airfare
alone yesterday for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend
me against these false charges was $1,500.00 return and given my
minimal monthly pension it's virtually impossible for me to cover
these expenses.

As such I would once again implore readers to give serious
consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via
PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending
a cheque or Money Order to me via snail mail at the following postal
address. Cash of course also works.

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at (
) or my blog (
) The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on
either site.


Arthur Topham
The Radical PressSee More

Unsubscribe / Change Profile:
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
"Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" -- Why it's Important to Take A Stand
Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 22 December 2012 06:07
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

"Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" -- Why it's Important to Take A

Today, I received this offensive "Happy Holidays" greeting from a
business I don't even know. Many of you, like me, are offended by
cowardly, conformist politically correct businesses that just can't
gag out "Merry Christmas", but must insult the Christian or European
Majority with the empty "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings."
Unless you're a snow lover, the cold and snowy Christmas time is not a
season to celebrate and Christmas is often fun but hectic and not much
of a holiday.

I believe it's important to take a stand and protest at the insulting
"Happy Holidays" greeting that rejects and denigrates the OUR
traditions supposedly to mollify newcomers who chose to come to an
overwhelmingly Christian and European continent.

Here is the evolution of my exchange with Ayesha Ahmed of Solsnet. I
urge you to speak up to businesses and politicians and DEMAND respect
for OUR traditions.

Paul Fromm

Dear Ayesha:

Thanks for the sentiments, but I am a Christian, like most Canadians,
and I celebrateCHRISTMAS!!!!!

Paul Fromm

yesha Ahmed

3:55 PM (8 hours ago)

to me

Hi Paul,

Wish you a Happy Christmas than May you be blessed with all the
happiness. Basically there are alot of contacts who belong to
different religion thats why i wished everyone in general. I hope you
did not mind that .

Ayesha Ahmed
Marketing Manager

One stop-shop for web solutions

Call: +1-905-405-8786 ( tel:%2B1-905-405-8786 )
Visit: ( )
Like: ( )
Follow: ( )

Thank you, Ayesha.

However, in contrast to a lot of multicultural propaganda, the vast
majority of Canadians are Christians and celebrate Christmas or are
secular and celebrate it as a folk feast. Inclusiveness should not
involve excluding the Majority.

BTW, Happy New Year.

Paul Fromm

Ayesha Ahmed
Marketing Manager

One stop-shop for web solutions

Call: +1-905-405-8786 ( tel:%2B1-905-405-8786 )
Like: ( )
Follow: ( )

Unsubscribe / Change Profile:
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
Page 125 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog