I am definitely not a National Socialist and I am pretty certain something terrible happened in Germany from 1938-1945 (Arthur disagrees), still I believe Arthur should have an absolute right to question the holocaust and what he perceives to be Jewish supremacy. On some points I even think Arthur might have a point, I sure didn't care for how Canada's two largest Jewish groups intervened in my Supreme Court case in favour of censorship or how our Supreme Court (which half of the justices were Jewish) ruled against my right to make truthful, disparaging statements against homosexuality and its promotion to children.
While I note Jews are heavily represented in the porn industry, the abortion industry, and amongst the Bolshevik movement, I am pretty much of the mindset that many Jews are decent human beings. I rather like Ezra Levant and I regard Rabbi Reuven Bulka as a great man, a true friend of Christians and the pro-family movement. On the other hand Arthur Topham hasn't said all Jews are bad. In fact his wife is a Jew. He believes Israel is bad, Arthur calls Israel an apartheid state. When since did that view become illegal? How does one know Arthur is hateful simply because his worldview leads him to believe Israel is an evil state? I don't hate all Saudi Arabians, but I view Saudi Arabia as a supremacist, oppressive, and I would even say evil, apartheid (all Muslim) state. Should I be found guilty of hate speech for expressing this view about Saudi Arabia?
Regardless of where one stands on Arthur's views, I do believe all Canadians should support his right to free speech. Arthur is an extremely accessible man, one can easily contact him through his website http://www.radicalpress.com
. Arthur will happily and honestly share with you how he perceives the world and what he perceives to be the truth. Arthur does profess a faith in Jesus Christ and he says he accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour in 1967 (the year I was physically born).
Anyways, I included Arthur's legal defense page at the bottom of this commentary, as I strongly support the right of Arthur and his website to exist.
In Christ's Service
Bill WhatcottGUILTY / NOT GUILTY!
by Arthur Topham
November 12, 2015
The British Columbia Supreme Court trail of R v Roy Arthur Topham concluded today in Quesnel’s Supreme Court at 11:27 a.m. when the Jury Foreman responded to the two charges laid against Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com.
Both charges in the case were identical. Only the time period in which the evidence on the website was investigated differed. The charge itself read:Count 1
Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.Count 2
Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 29th day of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.
When asked by the Court Registrar what the verdict was for Count 1 the Jury Foreman replied GUILTY.
When asked a second time by the Court Registrar what the verdict was for Count 2 the Jury Foreman replied NOT GUILTY.
After announcing to the court the verdict in both counts Justice Bruce Butler then thanked the jury for their time and dedication to the judicial process and following that he instructed them that anything they had discussed during the course of their deliberations was to remain secret and that to divulge anything that had taken place was a criminal offence. After that the jury was released.
Immediately upon releasing the jury Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson attempted to have Topham’s bail conditions changed, presumably in order to have more stringent conditions imposed other than those already in place.
Justice Butler was not prepared to entertain the Crown’s immediate offer. Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson addressed the Justice stating that if Crown wished to alter Topham’s bail conditions then the proper procedure would be for her to file an application to that effect and a hearing take place. Justice Butler agreed and a hearing on the matter was set for Thursday, November 19th, 2015.
Following that court adjourned.
At this point in time the question remains as to why a guilty verdict was handed down for Count 1 and why a not guilty verdict was handed down for Count 2.
Speculation is that Count 1 included evidence which the jury felt wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group. Count 1 also included the book Germany Must Perish! written by the Jewish author Theodore N. Kaufman as well as the parody/satire of Kaufman’s book by Topham titled Israel Must Perish! which Crown, from the onset of the trial, has adamantly claimed was a “book” that Topham wrote rather than merely a satire of Theodore N. Kaufmann’s book.
It is believed that the jury was convinced by Crown that Topham’s satire of the original book was in fact his own work and that Topham was therefore promoting the total destruction of the Jewish people which the jury felt was proof that Topham did “wilfully promote hatred toward an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”
The next stage in this unfolding drama could conceivably be an appeal based upon a Constitutional challenge to the criminal code’s section 319(2); one which had already been attempted back in June of 2015 but failed. It was deemed at the time of Justice Butler decision that a Charter application challenge to the legislation would be more appropriate following the outcome of the trial. Now that the outcome has resulted in a guilty verdict in Count 1 the way is open to again challenge Section 319(2) under Sec. 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code must be repealed based upon a Charter challenge and the framework for such a challenge may finally be in place.Please help fund the purchase of the court transcripts for R v Roy Arthur Topham.
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publis ... -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:
4633 Barkerville Highway