fourhorses
|
 Posted: 07/ 22/ 09 10:38 am Post subject: CHRC: The Be-bopping Railroad |
 |
|
CHRC: The Be-bopping Railroad
In the thread Harry Abrams joins the FD debate... Harry communicating on Free Dominion via proxy email, says he doesn’t want to discuss current cases, so I post this separately as not to hijack the thread. It is interesting to note that although Harry says he doesn’t want to discuss current cases, he does provide the public via his email to Connie at FD for posting, with a link to his most recent Statement of Particulars, called Abrams&BBC v Top Ham Particulars July 09 Final 2 , which is posted as a Scribd document. He also does start the whole discussion thread with his comments about his CHRC complaint case against Topham/Radical Press.
Aside from that puzzle of discussing it but not discussing it, Harry’s statements in his posting that appeared on FD are particularly interesting.
| Quote: | | " Our complaint has always has been concerning incitement against Jews and Citizens of Israel. We never included "people of colour" or similar in the action. As was posted on ARC, we believe that this began as something Mr. T. deliberately or not, misinterpreted from an email communication between the parties of the action." |
From the link to his most recent Statement of Particulars, we see that this issue has been submitted formally to the CHRC / CHRT. In fact both complainants (Abrams and B’nai Brith) jointly submitted and stated:
| Quote: | | The premise of this complaint is the contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada, and his internet publication known as Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel. |
In two instances, one to the public and one to the CHRC, the complainants state that their complaint referencing ”Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.”. I don’t think they could be more explicit.
Now follow this ….
In the Amended Statement of Particulars of the complainants as sent to the respondent(s), Topham and Radicalpress, dated April 9, 2009, by counsel for the CHRC, Daniel Poulin, the wording was changed to read:
| Quote: | size=12]“The issue to be raised before the Tribunal in this case is as follows:
Did the Respondents communicate or cause to be communicated, in whole or in part, by means of a computer, including the internet, any matter that is likely to expose Jews and other non-white[sic] to hatred or contempt, contrary to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?” [/size] |
Now somewhere along the CHRC Process of Abuse, someone changed the wording from ”Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” to Jews and other non-white. We understand from Harry Abrams that neither he nor his co-complainant, B’nai Brith did this. We also understand from Harry Abrams, that he and his co-complainant are contesting this wording change in the complaint forwarded by the CHRC.
The respondent, Topham, brought this to the complainants, CHRC and the CHRT’s attention, and received this reply from the CHRT:
| Quote: | Mr. Topham has requested that I order the Commission to amend its Statement of Particulars in which the Commission identifies the issue in the present case as whether being the communication allegedly made by the Respondent is likely to expose Jews and other non-Whites to hatred or contempt, contrary to s.13 of the CHRA. Mr. Topham maintains that the underlined portion of this statement should be changed to "and/or citizens of Israel".
If Mr. Topham believes the Commission has mischaracterized the issue, he is free to set out what he believes is the issue in his Statement of Particulars and to argue that at the hearing. The Statement of Particulars provides the parties with an opportunity to present their views of the case. The pre-hearing process is not the time to debate about those views. That debate takes place during the hearing on the merits of the complaint. Therefore, I will not require the Commission to amend its Statement of Particulars
Karen Jensen
Tribunal Mmber
CHRT
|
This was after both the CHRC and the complainants submitted to the CHRT that Topham’s Motion to have this wording changed back to the original wording was “frivolous and vexatious”.
Frivolous and Vexatious
Wow! What a dog’s breakfast.
The charges against a respondent are changed from the original complaint, by someone at the CHRC. The respondent submits a Motion to have the changed charges changed back to the original complaint charges. The complainants and the CHRC call this Motion frivolous and vexatious. The CHRT sweeps the respondents Motion under the rug. Then the complainants agree with the position of the Motion of the respondent in their public statement and their Amended Statement of Particulars, that the original charge should stand.
In another posting, this found on the ARC site, Mr. Abrams is noted by an ARC writer to have taken exception to Free Dominion post on this matter called CHRC: Jews are now Non-Whites . The ARC writer wasn’t very clear as to what exactly was supposedly contentious about the posting. The FDers weren’t agreeing with the CHRC God who decreed this religion=race theory. The FDers were saying that the CHRC is out to lunch on this genetic revelation. In fact the FDer, EdS, came forth and posted notes regarding the difference between Semitic and Ashkenazi Jews. Perhaps the ARC writer got twisted up with the blind fundamental support for the CHRC and misquoted Abrams? I can’t think of another explanation, especially since Dr. Mock, former exec of B’nai Brith, testified to the CHRT in the Warman v Kuburz case, that Jews are a religious group faith, not a race. In fact, Abrams and B’nai Brith quote the the Warman v Kuburz case as an authority in this complaint.
This is all very strange isn’t it? And to think that Abrams made the comments to the CHRT that information was being misinterpreted out there in the blogsphere. I would think that the CHRC has been experiencing some technical difficulties, not the blogsphere. The blogsphere is questioning these antics of the CHRC and bringing them to light for the public to see that the CHRC is an organization gone renegade.
The respondent replies:
| Quote: |
MOTION TO FURTHER AMEND CHRC STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS
BY EMAIL
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Box 4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
Email: radical@radicalpress.com
April 23, 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
The motion contained herein bears upon the Amended Statement of Particulars which the Respondent, Arthur Topham, received from commission counsel, Daniel Poulin, dated April 8, 2009.
There is one additional issue of immediate concern contained in the section of the Amended Statement of Particulars titled “ISSUES” which requires immediate redress. In this section Mr. Poulin has stated:
“The issue to be raised before the Tribunal in this case is as follows:
Did the Respondents communicate or cause to be communicated, in whole or in part, by means of a computer, including the internet, any matter that is likely to expose Jews and other non-white[sic] to hatred or contempt, contrary to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?”
The wording of this statement needs to be changed in order to reflect and comply with the actual issue as outlined in the original complaint by Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.
Apart from the faulty use of the English language, which appears to be endemic throughout the majority of the correspondence received thus far by the respondent from the Tribunal (and this is stated without malice), the nature of this complaint and the extreme importance of it to the majority of Canadians regarding the deliberately planned precedent which the complainants hope to establish, demands that the actual alleged complaint be clearly stated rather than the nebulous, poorly worded text which Mr. Poulin has proffered all parties as the “Issue” in this complaint case.
Allow me to remind the Tribunal and all parties that this complaint contains wording which will, if successfully accomplished by the complainants, radically alter the ability of special interest groups such as B’nai Brith Canada and their counterparts, the Canadian Jewish Congress (now a subsidiary of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy), the Jewish Defense League and the Simon Weisenthal Center, et al to use the nefarious section 13 of the CHR Act to charge anyone in Canada with “anti-Semitism” or “hate crimes” who might criticize any aspect of Israeli domestic and foreign policy or the ideological foundation upon which the state of Israel is premised which is, by definition, commonly known as Political Zionism.
As such, in the commission’s Statement of Particulars, this aspect of the “ISSUES” has been either purposely overlooked and deliberately altered in order to deflect away from the original wording so as to comply with the subterfuge of the complainants or else it is merely an unwitting error on the part of someone who hasn’t a sufficient grasp of the English language or the legal expertise to realize the importance or import of retaining the precise original wording. In the case of Mr. Poulin, counsel for the commission, I cannot accept that he is unaware of the importance of the nature of the wording so that leaves only one of the other two options and at this point I’m not willing to speculate on which of them it might be.
What I do expect though, in fact demand in the form of a request, is that the Tribunal once again set things right and level the playing field back to its original contours by instructing the commission to delete the deceptive text, “and other non-white[sic]” and replace it with the original text of the complaint which reads, “and/or citizens of Israel”.
The necessity for doing so ought not to be incongruous to the complainant’s counsel Mr. Kurz and the manifest reasonableness of doing so should, follow the above explanation, also be evident to both the Tribunal and Mr. Poulin.
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:
Daniel Poulin, counsel, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Marvin Kurz, Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada
Harry Abrams, Complainant
Anita Bromberg, Co-complainant
|
So the respondent is raising the exact same issue that the complainants have raised, but what the complainants have labeled as frivolous and vexatious when the respondent raises it. Hummmm ?
This raises other questions
1) If the complaint has been changed (unilaterally by the CHRC) to essentially be a charge that the complainants don’t support, then where is the basis of the CHRC s13 complaint ?
2) Since the CHRC is not listed as a complainant of record in this case, the CHRC has no standing as a complainant, therefore the complaint as forwarded by the CHRC’s counsel doesn’t exist.
The respondent points out:
| Quote: | | As such, in the commission’s Statement of Particulars, this aspect of the “ISSUES” has been either purposely overlooked and deliberately altered in order to deflect away from the original wording so as to comply with the subterfuge of the complainants or else it is merely an unwitting error on the part of someone who hasn’t a sufficient grasp of the English language or the legal expertise to realize the importance or import of retaining the precise original wording. In the case of Mr. Poulin, counsel for the commission, I cannot accept that he is unaware of the importance of the nature of the wording so that leaves only one of the other two options and at this point I’m not willing to speculate on which of them it might be. |
I believe we have to disregard the “ subterfuge of the complainants ” possibility suggested by Topham, as we have seen that the complainants do not agree with the CHRC on this matter. This leaves us with his questions of:
1) does the CHRC lack a sufficient grasp of the English language ?
or
2) does the CHRC lack the legal expertise to realize the importance or import of retaining the precise original wording ?
I think respondent Topham has missed the obvious, especially in light of the Abrams disclosure in his email and the recent Amended Statement of particulars of the complainants.
The CHRC is doing a railroad job. They care not for the true and actual concerns in the complaints as lodged by the complainants. Nor do they care for the rights of the respondent to reply directly to those complaints as lodged by the complainants. The CHRC is looking to chalk up another in the win column, no matter what processes are abused along the way, no matter what legal, civil and constitutional rights are trampled.
The big question is then, who at the CHRC is orchestrating this?
Choo Choo !
_________________
Freedom really does not evolve, it revolts.
Today`s rebel is a conservative and fiscal responsibility has become the new counterculture! |
|
