I couldn’t help but notice that, beyond last week’s blurb on CBC.ca/news the fact that Arthur Topham’s trial was getting under way in Quesnel, B.C., there has been complete silence from the b.s. media (CBC included).
Arthur Topham outside the court house in Quesnel, B.C. (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation).
I don’t suppose it’s possible there are some very uncomfortable subjects being discussed in that court room that you would rather not reach the outside world, lest the masses get ideas in their little heads?
Is it possible that Topham is on trial for engaging in legitimate criticism of a foreign government? Accurately quoting religious mythology? Is it possible the government, prodded along by known provacateur and SLAPP-suiter Richard Warman (in addition to Harry Abrams) is carrying out a show trial?
Is it possible that Mr. Topham is not coming off as a nutjob like Ernst Zundel did (yes, I’m old enough to remember that circus). Is it possible that Mr. Topham is coming to court in a suit and tie, and is leaving his hard-hat at home?
Ernst Zundel in 1983, wearing his trade-mark construction hard hat.
I sure would have liked to have known what Gilad Atzmon had to say? Or is it the fact Atzmon was testifying for THE DEFENSE the problem?
Gilad Atzmon (from RadicalPress).
So, what is it? If you are going to report a trial is under way, I want to know what is going on in that trial. That’s what I pay you for.
Feel free to respond to me by e-mail. Or at my own website, LettersToTheBeast, where you can find a copy of this letter.
Niagara Falls member of parliament , former attorney general, defense minister and current foreign minister Robert “Rob” Nicholson (right) poses with former Canadian “public safety” minister, current Manitoba supreme court judge and pervert Victor “Vic” Toews. (photo: Toronto Star)
Dear Bob:
It will come as no surprise to your secretary, Mrs. Quinney, that I oppose your regime’s latest attack on our freedoms and liberties, Bill C-51.
For reasons that I have expanded upon in great deal in past correspondence, it is my firm conviction that there is no actual terrorism anywhere in the world. Only C.I.A. And Mossad agents. And misguided fools like your “Via rail” would-be bombers who don’t know that when they think they’re dealing with “al-qaeda” (i.e. al-ciada) they are, in fact, dealing with the very people who are causing them distress in the first place.
As you have no doubt noticed from the nationwide protests, “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” doesn’t work any longer. Your friend, the former minister of government safety, current Manitoba supreme court judge and confirmed paedophile Victor Toews destroyed that argument for you. Like I said before, Bob, you can have access to my computers when I get to knock on your door and see yours.
The section of your legislation criminalizing the identification or publication of CSIS “agents” is of particular interest to me. Does that mean Canadian media would be forbidden from telling us how Mohammed al-Rashed, a CSIS agent who is not a Canadian citizen, was caught trying to smuggle three British girls into Syria to fight for “ISIS?” And furthermore, Bob, you wouldn’t happen to know the minister who would be responsible for getting Rashed his Canadian citizenship on the Q.T. after he completed his mission (whatever that mission was), would you? Bob?
You’re a lawyer, Bob. So, I was curious: is there any law currently on the books which forbids giving aid and comfort to our (purported) sworn enemies? Too bad our American friends don’t have such a law. If they did, the federal bureau of incineration could arrest the pilots of the aircraft who have been dropping food and weapons to “ISIS” all across Syria and Iraq. And Arizona senator John “Insane” McCain could be arrested for meeting with “ISIS” members, including the same men in one of Rita Katz’s beheading movies.
syrianfreepress.wordpress.com
Your regime has put me in a difficult position, Bob. I am a conservative in the mould of Preston Manning. I have been voting P.C., Reform, Alliance and Conservative since I was old enough to cast a ballot. You are not a conservative, Bob. Your are a regime of fascist, criminal thugs. In the next election, there are no other issues for me other than freedom and liberty. If I have to vote NDP to accomplish that goal, that is what I am going to do. I oppose higher taxes. Global warming is a hoax. The NDP is a party of gun grabbers, but it’s not as if your party was going to move in the direction of more firearms freedoms anyway. You have never repudiated the global warming fraud. And thanks to your regime, I now pay provincial sales tax on my utility bills and gasoline. Under an NDP government, I’ll deal with those issues as they arise. Their leader may be an avowed israel-firster, but I know their membership (both rank-and-file and in the house itself) are not. See Libby Davies.
If ending the War of Terror and the “war on drugs” can only be accomplished under an NDP government, then I am left with no choice but to vote NDP. And I don’t even smoke or drink. And I know “terrorism,” as you define it, as a contrived Orwellian hoax.
I abhor the policies of the NDP. But if having to live through four years of Thomas Mulcair is the kick in the ass your party needs to finally elect a Libertarian conservative (like Steve presented himself as, only for real), I will be voting Conservative again. But there is no way I will ever vote for a Conservative party led by, or even populated with, any member of your current regime. And I sure as hell won’t be voting for you, Bob.
I also note your regime’s proposed legislation identifies threats to my country’s “economic security.” I’ve got a really good idea, Bob: why don’t you send the RCMP across the street and arrest Steven Poloz and every other denizen inside the Bank of Canada building if you are so concerned about the economic well-being of Canada? And don’t forget to issue an extradition warrant for Mark Carney.
You are a war criminal, Bob. So is Harper and ever other member of your regime. You overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in favour of a new world order stooge. This has caused a civil war in Ukraine resulting in deaths and injuries numbering in the thousands. Not to mention untold misery to the Ukrainian people. And you personally have supplied its criminal regime with money, comfort and materiel. On top of all of that, in light of your friend Mohammed al-Rashed, now it looks like you’re guilty of treason. Before Ukraine, you did much the same thing in Libya. You’ve tried (and failed) to do so in Syria. You know your patrons in Tel Aviv will never get a war going in Iran because that is when Russia and China will pull the plug on dollar hegemony once and for all.
I don’t know how to tell you this, Bob: but it looks like Dean Del Mastro, Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin aren’t going to be the only ones going to prison.
Here’s the bottom line, Bob: First, any further attack on my freedoms, liberties and natural-born rights are absolutely unacceptable. Before I assume room temperature, I intend to take back the ones that successive regimes have already taken away.
Second: I don’t trust you. I don’t trust your regime. I don’t even like you.
Third: Osirak. Babies being thrown out of incubators. 9/11. Building Seven. Saddam’s Nukular Bombs. Anwar Awlaki. Joseph Cohen. Adam Pearlmen. Zachary Chesser. Russia grabbed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. The Ottawa double homicides.
Fourth: Given the behaviour of police workers – specifically during and since the 2010 Toronto police riots – and going back decades in general, I am disinclined to trust them with any degree of authority. Secret investigations and warrantless searches are out of the question. We have seen from the experience of our American friends that everything the national security state does now is done so in the name of fighting “terrorism.” As I have been telling you for six years now: I’ll be damned if I’ll ever let you get away with that in my country, Bob.
I am not specifically writing to you, Bob. Because that would imply that you are acting as a legitimate government with my consent. You are not. And you are not. This letter is for the public archives. Assuming this e-mail is not stored on Kathleen Wynne’s, Lois Lerner’s or Hillary Clinton’s hard drives, decades from now future historians studying great constitutional restorations in Canada and abroad will know that people like me stood up to petty, impotent, self-important, self-grandizing, corrupt tinpot dictators like yourself.
I also understand e-mails such as mine are also reviewed and stored by the Communications Security Establishment, among other entities. Again, Bob, not to suggest that this happens with my consent or approval. But I do request they spell my name correctly. That’s one “e” at the end. Got it, Bob?
Bob, remember when the idea of a massive international spy grid, government surveilling and, best of all, the “five eyes” was the stuff of wacko conspiracy theory nonsense? What else have the tinfoil hats been right about, Bob?
The idea of bringing the American police state to Canada is one that gives psychopaths like Peter MacKay big boy dreams at night.
(In this letter, I discounted the possibility of parliament actually surviving long enough before Harper had to prorogue it again; it never occurred to me that MacKay and Harper would piss off the Supreme Court so much that ANY government legislation would be D.O.A.)
August 17, 2013
Mr. Peter MacKay, M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Fax 1-613-992-2337
Dear Mr. MacKay:
An interesting story appeared in today’s National Post: “Peter MacKay insists Conservatives (sic) are not moving Canada toward U.S-style justice.” When a news story quotes a politician, it is important to remind oneself that the politician intends to do the exact opposite of what he is claiming.
Buried way down towards the bottom of the story: “MacKay said he also won’t be intimidated or deterred from considering new lawful access provisions despite privacy concerns that ultimately led to the death of previous bills. “
You can consider lawful access provisions all you want. You’re still not going to get them. As criminality in the senate continues to be exposed on a wider and wider scale every day, and as more scandals emerge, Mr. Harper will continue to resort to his old trick of proroguing parliament (i.e. going back to 24 Sussex and hiding until the thing blows over). That means your bill will die with it. Again and again.
And if, by some miracle you do get your warantless wiretapping bill through parliament and the disgraced senate, the Supreme Court will strike it down before it ever goes into effect. And, unfortunately for you, you won’t be able to “reform” the court in time to stop that from happening.
Conservatives such as myself are counting down the days until the next election. After your party suffers an apocalypse not seen since 1993, we can take the party back and rebuild it with the true libertarian conservative ideals that our founder, Preston Manning intended (yes, yes, I know you came from the Joe Clark / Brian Mulroney side; they wouldn’t even have done what Harper has done).
Canadians will not accept the police state that has incrementally taken over our American friends. Thanks to Edward Snowden, Big Media is now discussing topics once relegated to overnight talk radio shows and shows originating from Austin, Texas.
As I told your predecessor and Mr. Toews, if you dare to propose warrantless wiretapping (or lawful access, as you prefer to call it) I want the right as a Canadian citizen to drop by your office or your home and see what is in your computer. I want to record your telephone calls. I want to attach a GPS tracking device underneath your car and see where you go at night. And I want the same right to inspect every police department employee.
I assure you sir, you are seriously underestimating the mood of the Canadian people if you think we are going to let you get away with this.
Before you consider such legislation, I respectfully suggest you canvass your colleagues in caucus. Make sure none of them have downloaded any videos from the internet. That none of them have ever gone driving around looking for company at night (female or otherwise). And you absolutely want to be certain nobody has ever – or will ever – seek out recreational pharmaceuticals. Because people more enterprising than myself will find out.
As I have repeatedly told my M.P., your police state stops at the Niagara River. Canadians are not going to put up with it. I thought we made that clear the last time Mr. Toews tried this. Yet “your” government keeps scheming.
In closing, I do support your intention to toughen impaired driving / drugged driving penalties,. I would even go so far as to suggest a name for it: Rahim’s Law. Perhaps on the day it goes into effect, you can hop into an F-18, land in front of the Orangeville court house and hold a photo-op.
Letters To The Beast 