Harry Abrams

and

The League For Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada

v.

Arthur Topham

And

RADICALPRESS.com

File Number: T1360/9008

RE: REPLY TO ABRAMS AND B’NAI BRITH CANADA’S REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE BY THE RESPONDENT AND RADICALPRESS.COM

BY EMAIL

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
Email: radical@radicalpress.com

July 2, 2009

Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

Dear Nancy Lafontant,

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

Please find enclosed my response to the Tribunal respecting the Complainants’ Judicial
Notice 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 attention
of the Tribunal and the Commission the fact, as originally expressed by Harry Abrams
and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada in their initial complaint to the
Commission, 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 in
their Statement of Particulars of March 11, 2009 had been altered to the point of being so
abstruse as to be illogical and meaningless has now been reaffirmed by the Complainants
themselves. As such I would hope that the Tribunal might reserve a special place within
their 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 Commission
regarding 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 are
at issue here rather than “Jews and non-white[sic]” I will move on to the next contentious
issue; 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 open
hearing via the subterfuge of a “Judicial Notice” designed to forestall and prohibit the
introduction and analysis of any and all pertinent data relevant to the aforesaid complaint.

Under said notice the Complainants, after clarifying the Commission’s erroneous
Statement of Particulars of March 11, 2009, begin by stating:

“In order to facilitate and expedite the proceedings and not spend needless hearing time
re-arguing hateful themes for which there are already ample precedent, we wish to
remind 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 by
allowing 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 as
malodorous as it does in its present context and is an affront not only to natural law and
common sense but also to every conceivable and cherished notion of what constitutes
freedom in a democratic society. It is, I suggest, the absolute hallmark of all that is most
malicious, 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, disassociate
and 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 some
form 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 an
unabashed, blatant, arrogant and transparent attempt to disparage not only the
Respondent 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 is
the height of chutzpah and needs to be taken as such by any impartial observer in this
complaint, which, it is assumed, the Tribunal is.
This isn’t a case, as the Complainants would have the Tribunal believe, of someone
questioning 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 were
massacred in the basement of a house in Ekaterinberg, Russia by Bolshevik Jews. These
facts 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 in
fact, the evidence of centuries of censorship which those responsible for such restriction
of 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 in
itself but for the purposes of this pithy reply it must suffice to say that Western
civilization over the past century and longer has for the most part depended upon the
Zionist-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 and
the sudden access to information which had formerly been supressed by the Zionist
media cartel that the controversial subjects now being ferociously and violently attacked
by the Zionists are making headway and gaining increase credence at a pace hitherto
unheard of or conceivable prior to the freedom of the world wide web. In this sense we
are 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 formal
Response to the charges which the Complainants laid against me and website. That
article, Killing the Hundredth Monkey, clearly delineated what is happening around the
world today. It’s poignant point was that it’s too late now for the censors, aka the
Zionists, to think that they will continue to control information vital to a greater and more
holistic understanding of how the world works. It’s as impossible as it is for the rising
sun 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 the
hearing process by this suspect ploy of enjoining the Tribunal to lend a sympathetic ear to
their 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
withheld vital information. But, following the old adage that states perseverance in
whatever one is seeking, is good and will further one in their quest for greater knowledge,
I continued to study and research and observe and listen and contemplate all the data and
perspectives which crossed my mind’s questing vision. Such a process eventually led me
to the threshold of a greater understanding of world events and a growing prescience of
who the movers and shakers were behind global occurrences otherwise presented to an
unwary and believing public as merely innocuous players unrelated to any formal or
distinct political philosophy.
Still, I persisted in my efforts to grasp the underlying, hidden factors which affect world
events and eventually the light broke and the pieces fell into place and the puzzle no
longer presented a fragmented, confusing image. On the contrary it now was crystal clear
what the world was facing regardless of whether those perpetrating the massive fraud and
deception felt such a realization represented “hateful themes” or otherwise. As such, it
became my duty, as it is every man’s duty, to speak the truth as they know and
understand it to be.
That said I will now devote the rest of this reply to the 7 points which the Complainants
have asked the Tribunal to give judicial notice to, going through them in sequence. I
would first though like to preface my comments by stating that what I intent to write is
but a thumbnail sketch. All of these points mentioned by the Complainants plus many
others are the main thrust of my overall arguments to be brought out during the hearing
itself and therefore cannot be gone into in great detail at this stage of the pre-hearing
process.
1. “The Holocaust, that is: the systematic industrial-scale genocide of millions of
European Jews during World War two is a historical fact.”
This complaint against myself and the Radical Press is not about a holocaust. Mr. Abrams
and B’nai Brith are looking to have a judicial note created by the Tribunal that elevates
European Jews to a higher status than any other group.  Mr. Abrams would have you
establish that by the wording of his judicial note request, that there was only one
holocaust, which occurred in WWII and that that holocaust would be defined by the death
of millions of European Jews.  This, I suggest, is outrageous, prejudicial and
discriminatory. The genocide referred to herein, was not exclusive to European Jews.  It
included millions of non-Jews, including Catholic Christians, Protestant Christians,
Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Sheiks, Muslims, Hindus,
etc., as well as non European Jews. To decree, via judicial note, that the “holocaust”  was
a genocide of millions of European Jews, is to diminish the horrors, the sufferings, the
losses, the tragedies of all other groups and to specifically elevate European Jews above
all others. That, I again suggest, is but another example of the chauvinistic attitude on the
part of the Complainants being graphically illustrated in this example. 
Further, there were several other holocausts which include the Armenian genocide
holocaust of WWI, the Greek genocide holocausts of post WWII, the Ukrainian genocide
holocaust of WWII and pre-post WWII, the Imperial Japanese genocide holocausts of
south-Asian people in WWII, the Congo genocide holocausts of the 1980s, the Serbian-
Croatian-Bosnian genocide holocausts of the 1990s, the Darfur genocide holocausts of
recent times, the Zimbabwe white Christian genocide holocausts of recent times, etc.
To establish a judicial note as Mr. Abrams and B’nai Brith have requested, would equally
be outrageous, prejudicial and discriminatory by labeling the one holocaust position to
which Mr. Abrams and B’nai Brith subscribe as “The Holocaust” above all other mass
genocides. This would effect a ruling that genocide against European Jews is to somehow
trump all the other atrocities of history and declare that Canada elevate one group above
all others. This is no more than a veiled “canard” and “racial slur,” to which I would ask
that a Judicial Note be registered against Mr. Abrams and B’nai Brith.

2. “The PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION (and other permutations

thereof) is both a forgery AND a classic of antisemitic hate literature.”
Mr. Abrams and B’nai Brith are requesting a judicial pre-ruling in the way of a judicial
notice on a piece of literature to which the Complainants and Commission point to as
evidence with one hand and point to a file void of that same evidence with the other hand.
The Respondent opposes this request for the Complainants’ opinions to be recorded as
proof and demand that the Complainants be put to the task of providing their evidence in
the clear light of day so that it can be examined and challenged or rebutted if necessary. 
3. “The nation state of Israel is a constitutional, parliamentary democracy. In Israel
today, Arab Muslim citizens comprise approximately 20% of the population of Israel.
Arabic is one of the three official languages. Israeli Arabs participate fully in Israeli
society and are represented in all professions.”
As I clearly showed the Commission in my Response of January 3, 2008, the above
assertions by the Complainants are false and misleading with respect to the actual
conditions that prevail in Israel for any citizen not considered to be “Jewish” as defined
by the state. In that document which appears to not have been comprehended by the
“Hate Crimes Investigator” Ms. Sandy Kozak, I stated:
“In order to clearly illustrate the quintessential point which I am attempting to convey to
the CHRC [and now here to the Tribunal. A.T.] it is necessary at this place in my
response that I insert a somewhat lengthy extract from a source within Israel itself. In his
classic work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,
published in 1994, the well-known and respected Jewish scholar, life-long human rights
activist and citizen of the state of Israel, Israel Shahak, describes the Jewish state of
Israel and shows how it defines itself and its citizens. Because of the paramount
importance of this particular issue of Jewish citizenship, its dual nature and direct
relationship to both the Judaic faith and to the fact that Mr. Harry Abrams claims himself
to be a member of this faith, I feel it needs to be examined by your commission in much
greater detail. The extract itself comes from Chapter 1, A Closed Utopia? Sub-titled,
Defining the Jewish State. All bold type is mine:

“Without a discussion of the prevalent Jewish attitudes to non-Jews, even the concept of Israel as ‘a Jewish
state’, as Israel formally defines itself, cannot be understood. The widespread misconception that Israel,
even without considering its regime in the Occupied Territories, is a true democracy arises from the refusal
to confront the significance of the term ‘a Jewish state’ for non-Jews. In my view, Israel as a Jewish state
constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states
in the Middle East and beyond….”
“…Let me begin with the official Israeli definition of the term ‘Jewish’ illustrating the
crucial difference between Israel as ‘a Jewish state’ and the majority of other states. By
this official definition, Israel ‘belongs’ to persons who are defined by the Israeli
authorities as ‘Jewish’, irrespective of where they live, and to them alone. On the other
hand, Israel doesn’t officially ‘belong’ to its non-Jewish citizens, whose status is
considered even officially as inferior. This means in practice that if members of a
Peruvian tribe are converted to Judaism, and thus regarded as Jewish, they are entitled
at once to become Israeli citizens and benefit from the approximately 70 per cent of the
West Bank land (and the 92 per cent of the area of Israel proper), officially designated
only for the benefit of Jews. All non-Jews, (not only Palestinians) are prohibited from
benefiting from those lands. (The prohibition applies even to Israeli Arabs who served in
the Israeli army and reached a high rank.) The case involving Peruvian converts to
Judaism actually occurred a few years ago. The newly-created Jews were settled in the
West Bank, near Nablus, on land from which non-Jews are officially excluded. All Israeli
governments are taking enormous political risks, including the risk of war, so that such
settlements, composed exclusively of persons who are defined as ‘Jewish’ (and not
‘Israeli’ as most of the media mendaciously claims) would be subject to only ‘Jewish’
authority.

“I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britain [or Canada A.T.] would regard it as
antisemitic if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should
become a ‘Christian state’, belonging only to citizens officially defined as ‘Christians’.
The consequence of such doctrine is that Jews converting to Christianity would become
full citizens because of their conversion. It should be recalled that the benefits of
conversions are well known to Jews from their own history. When the Christians and the
Islamic states used to discriminate against all persons not belonging to the religion of the
state, including the Jews, the discrimination against Jews was at once removed by their
conversion. But a non-Jew discriminated against by the State of Israel will cease to be so
treated the moment he or she converts to Judaism. This simply shows that the same kind
of exclusivity that is regarded by the majority of the diaspora Jews as antisemitic is
regarded by the majority of all Jews as Jewish. To oppose both antisemitism and
Jewish chauvinism is widely regarded among Jews as a ‘self-hatred’, a concept which I
regard as nonsensical.

“The meaning of the term ‘Jewish’ and its cognates, including ‘Judaism’, thus becomes
in the context of Israeli politics as important as the meaning of ‘Islamic’ when officially
used by Iran or ‘communist’ when it was officially used by the USSR. However, the
meaning of the term ‘Jewish’ as it is popularly used is not clear, either in Hebrew or
when translated into other languages, and so the term had to defined officially.

“According to Israeli law a person is considered ‘Jewish’ if either their mother,

grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother were Jewesses by
religion; or if the person was converted to Judaism in a way satisfactory to the Israeli
authorities, and on condition that the person has not converted from Judaism to another
religion, in which case Israel ceases to regard them as ‘Jewish’. Of the three conditions,
the first represents the Talmudic definition of ‘who is a Jew’, a definition followed by
Jewish Orthodoxy. The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also recognize the
conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-Jewish slave by a
Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of becoming Jewish,
provided that the conversion is performed by authorized rabbis in a proper manner. This
‘proper manner’ entails, for females, their inspection by three rabbis while naked in a
‘bath of purification’, a ritual which, although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew
press, is not often mentioned by the English media in spite of its undoubted interest for
certain readers. I hope that this book will be the beginning of a process which will rectify
this discrepancy.

“But there is another urgent necessity for an official definition of who is, and who is not
‘Jewish’. The State of Israel officially discriminates in favour of Jews and against non-
Jews in many domains of life, of which I regard three as being most important:
residency rights, the right to work and the right to equality before the law.
Discrimination in residency is based on the fact that about 92 per cent of Israel’s land is
the property of the state and is administered by the Israel Land Authority according to
regulations issued by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an affiliate of the World Zionist
Organization. In its regulations the JNF denies the right to reside, to open a business,
and often also to work, to anyone who is not Jewish, only because he is not Jewish. At
the same time, Jews are not prohibited from taking residence or opening businesses
anywhere in Israel. If applied in another state against the Jews, such discriminatory
practice would instantly and justifiably be labeled antisemitism and would no doubt
spark massive public protests. When applied by Israel as a part of its ‘Jewish ideology’,
they are usually studiously ignored or excused when rarely mentioned.”

Given this factual data pertaining to the 3rd point presented to the Tribunal by the
Complainants I would expect that the issue in question here be disallowed from receiving
any judicial notice and that the subject be fully discussed during the upcoming hearing.

With respect to the following points 4 and 5:

4. The Jewish religion does not sanction or condone sex with babies, under aged
children or cadavers .
5. The Jewish religion does not sanction or condone murder of non-Jews.
There are numerous sources which establish as fact that the aforesaid allegations are
most definitely contained within the Jewish book known as the Babylonian Talmud
which is the primary source and final arbiter of all that is contained within the
religion of the Jews known as Judaism. In this case I suspect that the Complainants
are making direct referenence to the writings of the late author Elizabeth Dilling
found in her book, THE JEWISH RELIGION: Its Influence Today.
Another and more modern authority that clearly substantiates these and numerous
other practises is the recent book by the American scholar Michael Hoffman entitled,
Judaism Discovered – From Its Own Texts subtitled, A Study of the Anti-Biblical
Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit, published by Independent
History and Research, 2008.
 Again, it must be stridently stressed here that to subject these points to judicial notice
is to prevent the truth of such statements from being aired and acknowledged as an
essential aspect of the Babylonian Talmud’s teachings. If, as the Complainants are
alleging, these statements are “judicially known” to be false then it’s incumbent upon
the Tribunal to give open hearing to such allegations so as to establish the certitude of
what they are here only alleging. Their purpose, as in all of these seven points, is to
banish them from any arguments as if they were already proven to be notoriously
false and that, I affirm, is not the reality of what exists as historic fact.
6. Zionism is the international political movement that originally supported the
reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine. 1
Given the overwhelming volume of evidence that exists today which establishes as
fact that this point, as it is here worded, is indisputable I see no need for it to require
judical notice. But, to suggest that political Zionism is, in itself, limited to that one
objective is a horse of another colour and one which for multiple reasons cannot be
subject to any judicial notice. The sum total of political Zionism is too broad and
expansive to be fitted into any such micro-definition. To attempt to do so would be
akin to trying to force a camel through the eye of a needle; a grandiose, yet futile
impossibility. The naivete of the Complainants in even proffering such a position to
the Tribunal appears suspect and ought to be dismissed outright.
7. Neither Judaism nor Zionism have agendas to diminish,
subjugate or despoil other religions or systems of belief.
This final point, while I earnestly wish it were in fact an absolute fact and subject to
judical notice, is, like all of the preceeding points, not in synch with either historic record
or the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud, the highest, undisputed authority for all
religious Jews.
The volume of information related to the beliefs and actions of the Zionists respecting
their hatred for Christianity and other non-Jewish religions is legion and dates back to
historic events prior to the Chistian era and is further exacerbated in the actual murder of
Jesus Christ by the Pharisaic Judahites who were the religious sect that first formulated
the oral laws which later were written down and now constitute what is recognized
around the world as the Babylonian Talmud. And so once again it is incumbent upon the
Tribunal that they not be fooled by these baseless statements and enticed into giving them
the benefit of judicial notice merely on the opinion and word of the Complainants who
are, of themselves and for obvious reasons, extremely zealous and biased in their
opinions on these matters.
And so this concludes my comments on the matter of judicial notice. All that I have said
within the limited scope of this letter is but a tiny fraction of the evidence that will clearly
show, during the actual hearing, how all of these seven points presented to the Tribunal
are highly prejudicial to actual historic events. To therefore grant the Complainants any
of their desired wishes, beyond the one point mentioned above, would be to dimish

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
beyond all known levels of didactic discourse, the fundamental questions here being
disputed and garner the Tribunal and the Commission even more reason for the general
public to percieve them as being out of touch with all the basic historic references
necessary to sustain their mandates and their honour as legitimate quasi-judicial bodies.
If there is any further formality or motion that you require, please let me know as soon as
possible. 
 
Sincerely,

Arthur Topham pro se

Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com

Cc:
Anita Bromberg, Co-complainant
Marvin Kurz, Complainant Counsel
Harry Abrams, Complainant
Daniel Poulin, Commission counsel
Douglas Christie, Intervenor, Canadian Free Speech League