Anti-Zionist Publisher Arthur Topham Still Gagged After Five Months, Still No Charges

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 18 October 2012 04:33

*Anti-Zionist Publisher Arthur Topham Still Gagged After Five Months, Still No Charges Laid* We do things a little differently in Canada. We don't shoot dissidents in the streets or send them off to torture chambers. Still our political establishment, the police who serve (not you, silly, but) their political masters and protect (not you, silly, but) their pension plans, and the Zionist lobbyists who have pressed for and defended our anti-free speech laws find ways to throttle dissidents just the same. Last week Canada Border Service Agency stopped Rev. Terry Jones who was on his way to Toronto to participate in a debate on Islam. Yes, he'd threatened to burn the Koran in protest against Islamic terrorism several years ago. CBSA resorted to goonery and legal knit-picking to send him packing. They tore his car apart for four hours -- perhaps, the Reverend Sir had hidden a Bible. They invaded his laptop and cellphone. They then alleged he'd committed fraud fraud in Germany claiming to be a PH.D. The charge was later cleared when he explained to the German authorities that his doctorate was honourary. In a country where politicians routinely lie -- remember the B.C. Liberals promising no HST before the last election, then promptly doing a deal with the feds and bringing the HST in -- this slight confusion seems remarkably petty. But, whatever, It served their purposes and Rev. Jones was kept out of the country, Arthur Topham is a freethinker who for years published The Radical Press as a newspaper and, for the past few years, as a website. One of his key concerns has been Zionism. B'nai Brith activist Harry Abrams of Victoria brought a complaint under Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, with Marc Lemire's stunning Victoria in September 2, 2009, get Sec. 13 declared effectively unconstitutional, the charges have been adjourned. Still, Abrams and, apparently, arch complainer Richard Warman filed a complaint under Sec. 319 of Canada's Criminal Code., the notorious "hate law." In May, Arthur Topham's home was raided, he was jailed, and his computer taken. He was forced to sign an undertaking -- although no charges had been laid -- not to write his views on the Internet, not to communicate directly or indirectly with Harry Abrams or Richard Warman, and to surrender his hunting rifles, even though he lives in and pursues placer mining in an area with a large bear population. Mr. Topham reports that he has succeeded in getting his conditions modified a little. He needs your help. Here is a recent message slightly edited from Mr. Topham. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION *Arthur Topham, Publisher, **RadicalPress.com* <http://radicalpress.com/> *October 17, 2012* * * Now that the censors have lost their opportunity to jail Terry Tremaine for "hate crimes" it's likely that they'll be trying to nail me to the cross for this same phony, anti-democratic charge. -------- I was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) back in May of this year. The charge that was alleged against me was what has now become the Zionist's standard fare around the world for gaining control of free speech on the Internet - committing a "hate" crime. As a result of these trumped up charges laid by two of Canada's most notorious serial complainers - Richard Warman and Harry Abrams - I was put in jail and my home later invaded by the "BC Hate Crime Team" set up to track and destroy any dissidents who criticize either the Zionist ideology or the policies of the state of Israel) and all of my computers and electronic files taken by the said "Hate Crime Team" led by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and his second in command , Cst. Normandie Levas. [image: Levas&Wilson.jpg] *BC "HATE CRIME TEAM" Cst. Normandie Levas & Cst. Terry Wilson* Given that I was never formally charged by the Crown that didn't stop "Captain Hate Crime" Wilson from arbitrarily imposing extremely severe restrictions on me before releasing me from prison. I was ordered not to go on the Internet or e-mail anyone other than those few individuals who I was working with in a private business venture. Foremost was the order not to post any more articles on the web. The reason for this? Why, according to the police, to stop me from committing further offences. In other words I was already guilty of "crime" and, so, I had to be prohibited from committing more offences! But the real reason was to keep me quiet while the police were busy going through all of my private communications with friends and associates from around the world. I had thousands upon thousands of letters stored in my machine that the police were desperate to get a hold of and snoop into. So desperate in fact that they were willing to obtain an search warrant from a Judge based upon erroneous evidence in order to justify their actions. After 911 the Zionist insiders were further able to have an additional clause added Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Right Act,that draconian law, stating that it was a hate crime to post anything on the Internet that might hurt the feelings of the Zionists. It was that section of legislation, known as sec. 13, that was first used against me and my website RadicalPress.com <http://radicalpress.com/> back in the year 2007. What followed was a five year quasi-legal battle with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its Tribunal. They wanted my website shut down in the worst way and heavy fines imposed on me and an order to prevent me from writing anything further on this criminal cartel that's destroying world harmony. Eventually, because of public outcry, the federal government of Canada on June 7th, 2012, voted to scrap this specious piece of Zionist legislation and the case against me was finally thrown out. However,with the pending repeal of Sec. 13,I was not the victim of a complaint under the Canadian Criminal Code using Section 319(2) which states, "Wilful promotion of hatred". It was this charge that landed me in jail back in May and was responsible for the theft of all of my computers and files and the state (Crown) order to not post or go on the Internet. Eventually my lawyer Doug Christie was able to have the conditions of my Undertaking altered so that now I can send e-mails to friends and associates but I am still not allowed to write articles and post them anywhere on the web. This is why I can now send you a letter explaining why I have not posted on my website or written to people for the last 6 months. Now the most outlandish and scary aspect of this ordeal is that to date, one hundred and fifty-five days after my arrest, *I still have not been charged formally with this offence!* Yet, the police and the state have effectively silenced me and prohibited me from publishing anything at all. Free speech: only in Canada you say? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! I'm a senior citizen (65 years old) living on a very small pension). Anyone wishing to donate to help with my legal expenses can send funds to: *Arthur Topham* *4633 Barkerville Hwy* *Quesnel, B.C. Canada* *V2J 6T8* *"Digging to the root of the issues since 1998"* *To donate via PayPal* please go to the following website www. quesnelcariboosentinel.com and click on the PayPal button on the top right corner of the home page.

 

The Presentation the Commons Immigration Committee Refused to Hear

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 17 October 2012 05:24

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: http://ymlp333.net/zMKV9F -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE PRESENTATION THE COMMONS IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE REFUSED TO HEAR ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, THE CONSERVATIVES, UNDER OPPOSITION PRESSURE, PULLED TWO OF THEIR WITNESSES, A MONTREAL HUSBAND AND WIFE TEAM WHO RUN AN IMMIGRATION REFORM WEBSITE. THE CANADIAN PRESS (SEPTEMBER 26, 2012) REPORTED: "THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT PULLED TWO OF ITS OWN WITNESSES FROM AN IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE AT THE ELEVENTH-HOUR WEDNESDAY, CALLING MATERIAL ON THE GROUP’S WEBSITE DISGUSTING AND UN-CANADIAN. ALTHOUGH THE WITNESSES — MADI AND JULIEN LUSSIER OF THE CANADIAN IMMIGRATION FORUM — WERE NOT PUBLICLY LISTED BY THE COMMITTEE, THEY HAD BEEN SCHEDULED TO APPEAR AT ITS FIRST MEETING OF THE CURRENT PARLIAMENTARY SESSION. NDP AND LIBERAL MPS IMMEDIATELY BALKED AT THEIR PRESENCE AS SOON AS THEY ARRIVED AT THE COMMITTEE, POINTING TO ELEMENTS ON THE GROUP’S WEBSITE THAT THEY CALLED SHOCKING. SEVERAL MPS ON THE COMMITTEE ARE IMMIGRANTS. SECTIONS OF THE SITE INCLUDE ONE ON SO-CALLED “CHINAFICATION” AND “ARABIZATION.” THERE IS ALSO A VIDEO INTERVIEW WITH CANADIAN WHITE SUPREMACIST PAUL FROMM AND SEVERAL FROM A CONFERENCE OF THE “RACIALIST” GROUP AMERICAN RENAISSANCE. THE SITE IS CALLED THE CANADIAN IMMIGRATION REPORT ( HTTP://WWW.CIREPORT.CA/ ), WITH THE SUBTITLE: “THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION AND RACIAL DIVERSITY ON CANADA AND CANADIANS. A SURVEY ON THE SITE ASKS HOW LONG IMMIGRATION TO THE WEST SHOULD BE HALTED.'IF YOU WANT TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE CANADA, STOP IMMIGRATION FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS,' MADI LUSSIER WROTE IN A COMMENT POSTED LAST MONTH ( HTTP://WWW.CIREPORT.CA/2012/08 ).": THE MAIN PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE THAT MPS DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY THOUGHT WERE THE COUPLE'S VIEWS. THAT SHOULD BE IRRELEVANT. MPS MUST HEAR WHAT CANADIANS ARE THINKING, NOT JUST THE IMMENSELY SELFISH AND GREEDY AND SELF-INTERESTED IMMIGRATION LOBBY (IMMIGRATION LAWYERS, SOCIAL WORKERS, ESL TEACHERS, BUSINESS LEADERS SEEKING CHEAP LABOUR AND HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT TO KEEP WAGES DOWN, AND A FEW WHO DREAM OF REPLACING THE EUROPEAN FOUNDING/SETTLER PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY WITH OTHERS THE CANADIAN PRESS ACCOUNT CONTINUED: " NDP MP JINNY SIMMS SAID SHE WAS APPALLED BY WHAT SHE SAW ON THE WEBSITE.... ABOUT 15 MINUTES LATER, THE LUSSIERS WERE TOLD BY A COMMITTEE AIDE THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE APPEARING THAT AFTERNOON. MADI LUSSIER, WHO IS UNDERGOING CANCER TREATMENT, RIPPED OFF A WIG SHE WAS WEARING AND WAVED IT AT THE COMMITTEE. SHE YELLED “SHAME!” AS THEY WALKED OUT THE DOOR. THE LUSSIERS CONCEDED THEIR VIEWS MIGHT NOT BE IN THE MAINSTREAM, BUT SAID THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BEHAVED LIKE COWARDS FOR NOT AT LEAST HEARING THEM OUT. THEY ARGUED THEIR WEBSITE FEATURES A RANGE OF VIEWS ON IMMIGRATION. 'IS CANADA GOING TO LOOK THE WAY IT DOES NOW IN 150-200 YEARS? WILL THE VALUES OF GENDER EQUALITY STILL EXIST? WE DON’T KNOW,' JULIEN LUSSIER SAID OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE. 'WILL THE VALUE OF RESPECTING HOMOSEXUALS, ENVIRONMENTALISM AND DEMOCRACY EXIST WHEN THE MAJORITY WON’T BE OF EUROPEAN ORIGIN?'" AND, THEN, HE FINAL INSULT OF THIS DISGRACEFUL EPISODE. THE LUSSIERS WERE DISOWNED BY THE MP WHO INVITED THEM AND WE, THE EUROPEAN FOUNDING/SETTLER PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT DOMINION ARE LECTURED ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CANADIAN BY A NEWCOMER FROM TAIWAN: " CONSERVATIVE MP CHUNGSEN LEUNG’S OFFICE HAD PUT FORWARD THE NAMES OF THE LUSSIERS AS WITNESSES. HE SAID THAT A CONSTITUENT HAD TOLD HIM THAT THE LUSSIERS WERE LAWYERS AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF WHAT WAS ON THEIR WEBSITE. 'THE VIEWS STATED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE DISGUSTING AND ANTI-CANADIAN. I AM OUTRAGED BY THEM,' LEUNG SAID. 'I HAVE ASKED THE CLERK THAT THESE WITNESSES BE PULLED. IF THEY DO APPEAR, I INTEND TO TELL THEM THE VIEWS ON THE WEBSITE ARE ABHORRENT AND UN-CANADIAN.'” MR. LEUNG'S PARTY LEADER, THE PRIME MINISTER, IS A HUGE FAN OF ISRAEL:"ISRAEL'S VALUES ARE OUR VALUES," HE SAYS. IN THE FACE OF LARGE NUMBERS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM EAST AFRICA, THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU HAS STATED THAT THESE ILLEGALS THREATEN TO DILUTE THE JEWISH NATURE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. FAIR ENOUGH. THEN, WHY SHOULD IT BE REPREHENSIBLE, "UN-CANADIAN" IN THE WORDS OF CHUNGSEN LEUNG, TO NOT WANT TO SEE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN FOUNDING/SETTLER PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY? THE REGINA LEADER POST (SEPTEMBER 28, 2012) REPORTED:; "IN AN INTERVIEW WITH POSTMEDIA NEWS, JULIEN LUSSIER ADMITTED HE AND HIS WIFE'S OPINIONS ON IMMIGRATION ARE 'QUITE AVANT-GARDE,' BUT THAT DISMISSING THEM SO ABRUPTLY WAS UNFAIR. 'IMMIGRATION IS PUBLIC POLICY. IF WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT OUR PUBLIC POLICY, WE HAVE NO RIGHT CRITICIZING A COUNTRY LIKE CHINA FOR SHUTTING DOWN FREE SPEECH,' HE SAID. AS FOR HIS VIEWS ON IMMIGRATION, HE SAID HE BELIEVES 'POACHING"' THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IS UNFAIR TO THOSE EMERGING NATIONS AND CANADA SHOULD NOT ACCEPT ANY REFUGEES. LAUNCHED THREE YEARS AGO, THE WEBSITE FEATURES ORIGINAL CONTENT AS WELL AS LINKS TO BOTH MAINSTREAM AND ALTERNATIVE MEDIA ARTICLES. INCLUDED ARE ORIGINAL INTERVIEWS WITH WHITE SUPREMACIST PAUL FROMM AND AMERICAN WRITER TITO PERDUE, THE LATTER OF WHOM IS QUOTED SAYING 'THE CIVILIZATIONS THAT BLACK PEOPLE ALONE HAVE CREATED ... GENERALLY TURN OUT TO BE A KIND OF HELL ON EARTH.'" THIS WAS THE SIXTH TIME THEY HAD BEEN SCHEDULED TO APPEAR. IT'S ALMOST BORING TO HAVE TO REPEAT BUT I AM NOT AND CFIRC IS NOT "WHITE SUPREMACIST." THAT IS A DISCUSSION STOPPING SMEAR, A TERM OF ABUSE. WHITE SUPREMACISTS INSIST ON IMPOSING "WHITE" STANDARDS ON THE WORLD -- LIKE, SAY, IMPOSING OUR VALUES ON THE ROLE OF WOMEN BY FORCE OF ARMS IN AFGHANISTAN. WE HAVE NO SUCH IMPERIALIST GOALS. WE ARE WHITE PRESERVATIONISTS WHO WISH TO PRESERVE OUR PEOPLE'S POSITION IN THE LAND WE BUILD, NO MORE, NO LESS. HERE THE ACTUAL AUDIO PROCCEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE AS THEY DECIDE NOT TO HEAR THE LUSSIERS. HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?FEATURE=PLAYER_EMBEDDED&V=M0GKZET0PQG ( HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?FEATURE=PLAYER_EMBEDDED&V=M0GKZET0PQG ) HERE'S THE TEXT OF THE REMARKS THE LUSSIERS PLANNED TO DELIVER TO THE IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE AND THESE CONFIRMED IGNORAMUSES REFUSED TO HEAR. PAUL FROMM DIRECTOR CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE CIREPORT BANNED PRESENTATION TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ( HTTPS://DOCS.GOOGLE.COM/FILE/D/0B-W3_E_IL79PY0HTDG50Q1RHZKU/EDIT?PLI=1 ) Foremost, we would like to express our gratitude to the Committee for being open to hearing the thoughts of private citizens in regards to immigration and refugee matters. Without wishing to minimize the important work of Government and civil servants, it is ordinary people who, like ourselves, work in the private sector and use public transportation on a daily basis that experience the brunt of Canada’s immigration policies. We must note how frustrating it is for many Canadians to be tremendously impacted by these issues, but far too seldom consulted. We have been running a website called Canadian Immigration Report for the past three years and have followed and posted over 4,000 immigration-related news items. We are extremely aware of the problems related to Canada’s immigration and refugee policy and appear today to present the unspoken thoughts of many Canadians, whom are generally too timid and fearful to voice their criticism of immigration matters. A growing number of people in this country are extremely frustrated about the risks of commenting on Canada’s immigration policy for fear of prompting a string of overused epithets. Immigration is simply the act of processing applications. It is essentially a matter of who gets a rubber stamp on their passport. Nothing more. Immigration is not an immutable chimera that cannot be discussed or debated. It is not beyond questioning and demands the same scrutiny as any other public policy. Immigration is indeed our most important public policy because we are, in effect, choosing our public. These rubber stamps are deciding what our population will look like and how its future will be shaped. Is Canada to continue the legacy of our European settlers, or are we to disintegrate into linguistic, religious and ethnic micro-societies? Will the same European values we have today still exist in a hundred years? Immigration is the most powerful and the most permanent public policy and it deserves to be open to criticism and debate just the same as any other policy. Today, we were invited here to present our concerns regarding Canada’s immigration and refugee policy which we will surmise in the following six points: 1. The loss of social cohesion resulting from an aggressive and artificial increase in ethnic and racial diversity. Additionally, the inevitable ethos shift from a European-based society to a non-European, nondescript, global-based amalgamation of peoples, each with their own specific cultural and group interests. We must consider how dearly we are dedicated to maintaining Canada’s distinctly European set of values. The very essence of this nation is imperiled by today’s immigration policy. It is difficult to foresee the perpetuation of European principles of gender equality, environmentalism, democracy, respect of gay rights and compassion if this country is to be replaced and governed by a coalition of non-European ethnic groups, each with their own non-European cultural background and strong sense of ethnic solidarity. Our immigration policy decides whether or not we wish for our descendants to live in a society that resembles ourselves or in a nation burdened by constant squabbling between rival ethnic and racial groups. 2. Our population increase by means of importing people has a tremendous negative environmental impact. We are importing over a quarter million more people every year1 and these individuals are frequently leaving a country with a very low rate of per-capita carbon dioxide emission. For instance, in 2010 Canada acquired 36,000 permanent residents from the Philippines2, and each of these immigrants multiplied their carbon footprint by a factor of twenty3. It must be considered, also, that immigrants come to Canada and expect a first-world lifestyle. Very few arrive from China or Africa and enjoy being told that they should ride a bus or bicycle around town for “green” reasons. These individuals left that sort of lifestyle back home and are all too keen to embrace the heavily consumerist, car-driving habits of every other Canadian. We are increasing Canada’s carbon footprint exponentially. 3. A low birthrate will not be solved by importing child-breeders. We need a Canadian solution to this Canadian problem. Surely, we cannot continue importing individuals forever. Immigration is nothing more than an ineffective and costly placebo. 4. Economists have shown that Canadian immigrants are tax consumers rather than tax contributors5. There is nothing more sensible than expecting our immigrants to exceed or at least match the income tax contributions of their fellow Canadians. We live not far from our local food bank and on a daily basis witness a constant stream of newly-arrived immigrants dragging away suitcases of free food. Why should we import individuals who are not only unable to provide for themselves but who also require the extended assistance usually reserved for the most helpless in our society? Helpless immigrants are arriving in our cities by tens of thousands and immediately become Canada’s neediest. This is hard to justify. Our immigrants must be a net gain, not a net drain. 5. The notion of refugee must be redefined. Canadian attitudes towards refugees were clearly expressed during the summer of 2010 when nearly 500 Tamils landed on the shores of B.C. in one of the most blatant cases of asylum shopping in recent memory. The case galvanized public opinion. Both, immigrants and native-born, were appalled at the idea that Canada was considering granting the Tamils asylum who could have simply crossed the 29 kilometers long Palk Strait into the Indian state of Tamil Nadu rather than travel over 12,000 kilometers over the ocean to finally arrive in Canada. The clear impracticality and ridiculousness of this voyage says something about the status of refugees today, many of whom cross several countries or even oceans in order to shop for asylum. A true refugee should seek refuge in the nearest contiguous safe country, not halfway around the world. They should then plan a return home once the crisis has been resolved. Continuing to accept persecuted dissidents and political reformers, Western nations are harming or even negating the chances that these individuals will change their countries for the better. Imagine if Mahatma Gandhi, Aung Suu Yin or Nelson Mandela had sought refuge abroad rather than fighting to improve the social conditions in their homelands. The fact that these heroes resolved to remain in their countries in spite of adversity speaks to the importance of encouraging national reformers to work from inside. Are we not destroying opportunities for improvement in troubled lands by encouraging mass migration rather than social change? 6. Many of Canada’s immigrants constitute a deadly brain drain from the world’s developing countries. It is inhumane and immoral to tempt these skilled and educated individuals to leave the homelands that so desperately need them. We are simply stealing the future of these countries for the supposed benefit of our own. It is not far-fetched to claim that Canadian immigration, as practiced today, is a form of White Supremacy. Canada, along with a handful of other white, Western nations, is complicit in poaching the most well-educated classes from developing countries under the pretense of our own national interest. We are guilty of maintaining this brain drain policy that is detrimental to the world’s neediest. Our immigration policy is essentially a selfish act that is dooming the future of the rest of the planet. Over the past twenty years, Canada and other Western countries have been forging a sense of disillusionment and despair for hundreds of millions of people across the world, many of whom have a life’s goal of simply abandoning their own countries for the lands of milk and honey promised by strong immigration-policy countries like Canada. We feel that Canada, being a forward-thinking and progressive nation, should be a world leader in establishing responsible and sustainable global immigration practices. Furthermore, Canada must learn from the mistakes already committed in Europe and ensure that we are spared the tragic consequences of unbridled and reckless immigration policies. We thank the Commission for the opportunity and welcome your questions. _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp333.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqghjqgguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

The Presentation the Commons Immigration Committee Refused to Hear

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 17 October 2012 05:09

*The Presentation the Commons Immigration Committee Refused to Hear* On Wednesday, September 26, the Conservatives, under Opposition pressure, pulled two of their witnesses, a Montreal husband and wife team who run an immigration reform website. *The Canadian Press* (September 26, 2012) reported: "The Conservative government pulled two of its own witnesses from an immigration committee at the eleventh-hour Wednesday, calling material on the group’s website disgusting and un-Canadian. Although the witnesses — Madi and Julien Lussier of the Canadian Immigration Forum — were not publicly listed by the committee, they had been scheduled to appear at its first meeting of the current parliamentary session. NDP and Liberal MPs immediately balked at their presence as soon as they arrived at the committee, pointing to elements on the group’s website that they called shocking. Several MPs on the committee are immigrants. Sections of the site include one on so-called “Chinafication” and “Arabization.” There is also a video interview with Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm and several from a conference of the “racialist” group American Renaissance. The site is called the Canadian Immigration Report, with the subtitle: “The impact of immigration and racial diversity on Canada and Canadians. A survey on the site asks how long immigration to the West should be halted.'If you want to protect and preserve Canada, stop immigration for at least 50 years,' Madi Lussier wrote in a comment posted last month.": The main problem seems to be that MPs didn't like what they thought were the couple's views. That should be irrelevant. MPs MUST hear what Canadians are thinking, not just the immensely selfish and greedy and self-interested immigration lobby (immigration lawyers, social workers, ESL teachers, business leaders seeking cheap labour and high unemployment to keep wages down, and a few who dream of replacing the European founding/settler people of this country with others The Canadian Press account continued: " NDP MP Jinny Simms said she was appalled by what she saw on the website.... About 15 minutes later, the Lussiers were told by a committee aide that they would not be appearing that afternoon. Madi Lussier, who is undergoing cancer treatment, ripped off a wig she was wearing and waved it at the committee. She yelled “Shame!” as they walked out the door. The Lussiers conceded their views might not be in the mainstream, but said the committee members behaved like cowards for not at least hearing them out. They argued their website features a range of views on immigration. 'Is Canada going to look the way it does now in 150-200 years? Will the values of gender equality still exist? We don’t know,' Julien Lussier said outside the committee. 'Will the value of respecting homosexuals, environmentalism and democracy exist when the majority won’t be of European origin?'" And, then, he final insult of this disgraceful episode. The Lussiers were disowned by the MP who invited them and we, the European founding/settler people of this great Dominion are lectured on what it means to be Canadian by a newcomer from Taiwan: "Conservative MP Chungsen Leung’s office had put forward the names of the Lussiers as witnesses. He said that a constituent had told him that the Lussiers were lawyers and he was unaware of what was on their website. 'The views stated on this website are disgusting and anti-Canadian. I am outraged by them,' Leung said. 'I have asked the Clerk that these witnesses be pulled. If they do appear, I intend to tell them the views on the website are abhorrent and un-Canadian.'” Mr. Leung's party leader, the Prime Minister, is a huge fan of Israel:"Israel's values are our values," he says. In the face of large numbers of illegal immigrants from East Africa, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that these illegals threaten to dilute the Jewish nature of the State of Israel. Fair enough. Then, why should it be reprehensible, "un-Canadian" in the words of Chungsen Leung, to not want to see the replacement of the European founding/settler people of this country? The *Regina Leader Post *(September 28, 2012) reported:; "In an interview with Postmedia News, Julien Lussier admitted he and his wife's opinions on immigration are 'quite avant-garde,' but that dismissing them so abruptly was unfair. 'Immigration is public policy. If we can't talk about our public policy, we have no right criticizing a country like China for shutting down free speech,' he said. As for his views on immigration, he said he believes 'poaching"' the best and the brightest from developing countries is unfair to those emerging nations and Canada should not accept any refugees. Launched three years ago, the website features original content as well as links to both mainstream and alternative media articles. Included are original interviews with white supremacist Paul Fromm and American writer Tito Perdue, the latter of whom is quoted saying 'the civilizations that black people alone have created ... generally turn out to be a kind of hell on earth.'" This was the sixth time they had been scheduled to appear. It's almost boring to have to repeat but I am not and CFIRC is not "white supremacist." That is a discussion stopping smear, a term of abuse. White supremacists insist on imposing "White" standards on the world -- like, say, imposing our values on the role of women by force of arms in Afghanistan. We have no such imperialist goals. We are White Preservationists who wish to preserve our people's position in the land we build, no more, no less. Here the actual audio proccedings of the committee as they decide not to hear the Lussiers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m0GKZEt0pqg Here's the text of the remarks the Lussiers planned to deliver to the Immigration Committee and these confirmed ignoramuses refused to hear. *Paul Fromm* *Director* *CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE* *CIReport banned presentation to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration* Foremost, we would like to express our gratitude to the Committee for being open to hearing the thoughts of private citizens in regards to immigration and refugee matters. Without wishing to minimize the important work of Government and civil servants, it is ordinary people who, like ourselves, work in the private sector and use public transportation on a daily basis that experience the brunt of Canada’s immigration policies. We must note how frustrating it is for many Canadians to be tremendously impacted by these issues, but far too seldom consulted. We have been running a website called Canadian Immigration Report for the past three years and have followed and posted over 4,000 immigration-related news items. We are extremely aware of the problems related to Canada’s immigration and refugee policy and appear today to present the unspoken thoughts of many Canadians, whom are generally too timid and fearful to voice their criticism of immigration matters. A growing number of people in this country are extremely frustrated about the risks of commenting on Canada’s immigration policy for fear of prompting a string of overused epithets. Immigration is simply the act of processing applications. It is essentially a matter of who gets a rubber stamp on their passport. Nothing more. Immigration is not an immutable chimera that cannot be discussed or debated. It is not beyond questioning and demands the same scrutiny as any other public policy. Immigration is indeed our most important public policy because we are, in effect, choosing our public. These rubber stamps are deciding what our population will look like and how its future will be shaped. Is Canada to continue the legacy of our European settlers, or are we to disintegrate into linguistic, religious and ethnic micro-societies? Will the same European values we have today still exist in a hundred years? Immigration is the most powerful and the most permanent public policy and it deserves to be open to criticism and debate just the same as any other policy. Today, we were invited here to present our concerns regarding Canada’s immigration and refugee policy which we will surmise in the following six points: *1. The loss of social cohesion resulting from an aggressive and artificial increase in ethnic and racial diversity.* Additionally, the inevitable ethos shift from a European-based society to a non-European, nondescript, global-based amalgamation of peoples, each with their own specific cultural and group interests. We must consider how dearly we are dedicated to maintaining Canada’s distinctly European set of values. The very essence of this nation is imperiled by today’s immigration policy. It is difficult to foresee the perpetuation of European principles of gender equality, environmentalism, democracy, respect of gay rights and compassion if this country is to be replaced and governed by a coalition of non-European ethnic groups, each with their own non-European cultural background and strong sense of ethnic solidarity. Our immigration policy decides whether or not we wish for our descendants to live in a society that resembles ourselves or in a nation burdened by constant squabbling between rival ethnic and racial groups. *2. Our population increase by means of importing people has a tremendous negative environmental impact*. We are importing over a quarter million more people every year1 and these individuals are frequently leaving a country with a very low rate of per-capita carbon dioxide emission. For instance, in 2010 Canada acquired 36,000 permanent residents from the Philippines2, and each of these immigrants multiplied their carbon footprint by a factor of twenty3. It must be considered, also, that immigrants come to Canada and expect a first-world lifestyle. Very few arrive from China or Africa and enjoy being told that they should ride a bus or bicycle around town for “green” reasons. These individuals left that sort of lifestyle back home and are all too keen to embrace the heavily consumerist, car-driving habits of every other Canadian. We are increasing Canada’s carbon footprint exponentially. *3. A low birthrate will not be solved by importing child-breeders.* We need a Canadian solution to this Canadian problem. Surely, we cannot continue importing individuals forever. Immigration is nothing more than an ineffective and costly placebo. *4. Economists have shown that Canadian immigrants are tax consumers rather than tax contributors5*. There is nothing more sensible than expecting our immigrants to exceed or at least match the income tax contributions of their fellow Canadians. We live not far from our local food bank and on a daily basis witness a constant stream of newly-arrived immigrants dragging away suitcases of free food. Why should we import individuals who are not only unable to provide for themselves but who also require the extended assistance usually reserved for the most helpless in our society? Helpless immigrants are arriving in our cities by tens of thousands and immediately become Canada’s neediest. This is hard to justify. Our immigrants must be a net gain, not a net drain. *5. The notion of refugee must be redefined.* Canadian attitudes towards refugees were clearly expressed during the summer of 2010 when nearly 500 Tamils landed on the shores of B.C. in one of the most blatant cases of asylum shopping in recent memory. The case galvanized public opinion. Both, immigrants and native-born, were appalled at the idea that Canada was considering granting the Tamils asylum who could have simply crossed the 29 kilometers long Palk Strait into the Indian state of Tamil Nadu rather than travel over 12,000 kilometers over the ocean to finally arrive in Canada. The clear impracticality and ridiculousness of this voyage says something about the status of refugees today, many of whom cross several countries or even oceans in order to shop for asylum. A true refugee should seek refuge in the nearest contiguous safe country, not halfway around the world. They should then plan a return home once the crisis has been resolved. Continuing to accept persecuted dissidents and political reformers, Western nations are harming or even negating the chances that these individuals will change their countries for the better. Imagine if Mahatma Gandhi, Aung Suu Yin or Nelson Mandela had sought refuge abroad rather than fighting to improve the social conditions in their homelands. The fact that these heroes resolved to remain in their countries in spite of adversity speaks to the importance of encouraging national reformers to work from inside. Are we not destroying opportunities for improvement in troubled lands by encouraging mass migration rather than social change? *6. Many of Canada’s immigrants constitute a deadly brain drain from the world’s developing countries.* It is inhumane and immoral to tempt these skilled and educated individuals to leave the homelands that so desperately need them. We are simply stealing the future of these countries for the supposed benefit of our own. It is not far-fetched to claim that Canadian immigration, as practiced today, is a form of White Supremacy. Canada, along with a handful of other white, Western nations, is complicit in poaching the most well-educated classes from developing countries under the pretense of our own national interest. We are guilty of maintaining this brain drain policy that is detrimental to the world’s neediest. Our immigration policy is essentially a selfish act that is dooming the future of the rest of the planet. Over the past twenty years, Canada and other Western countries have been forging a sense of disillusionment and despair for hundreds of millions of people across the world, many of whom have a life’s goal of simply abandoning their own countries for the lands of milk and honey promised by strong immigration-policy countries like Canada. We feel that Canada, being a forward-thinking and progressive nation, should be a world leader in establishing responsible and sustainable global immigration practices. Furthermore, Canada must learn from the mistakes already committed in Europe and ensure that we are spared the tragic consequences of unbridled and reckless immigration policies. We thank the Commission for the opportunity and welcome your questions.