From the beginning Arthur Topham’s case puzzled me.

Charging Mr. Topham with “wilfully promoting hatred” under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada seemed excessive given he already faces charges under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

What makes Arthur Topham so scary?

In today’s world, where we value “hurt feelings” over our Charter Rights and Freedoms, Arthur Topham is the most heinous of criminals imaginable.

Why?

Arthur Topham dares speak his mind.  He does so under the rational and logical belief his Right to Freedom of Speech, as enshrined in Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, actually means something.

Section 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Arthur Topham is a publisher.  He runs two websites (that I’m aware of), the Quesnel-Cariboo Sentinel and RadicalPress.com.  On those sites he publishes a variety of material on a variety of subjects, just as I do weekly in Canadian Rights and Freedoms Bulletin and on more regularly here on ChristopherDiArmani.com.

Under Section 2(b) a reasonable and rational person may believe the following:

• Being a human being, Arthur Topham is included in “Everyone”
• Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression apply to him because he’s part of “Everyone”
• As he is a publisher, “freedom of the press” would apply and,
• As Arthur Topham publishes his website on the Internet he is protected as he uses “other means of communication.”

Sadly, “reasonable” and “rational” have nothing in common with either Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada or Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, both of which render our Charter Right to Freedom of Speech null and void.

How can one be free to speak his thoughts, beliefs and opinions without someone, somewhere, taking offense?

I’m positive someone reading this very article will take offense for reasons I neither know nor care.  But will they be offended enough for me to be charged, like Arthur Topham, for a hate crime?  God only knows.

Here’s the relevant section of criminal law:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The benefit of being charged criminally is that the Truth is actually relevant.

All of this simply confuses me more when it comes to Arthur Topham’s criminal charge.  Since he has the Truth available to him as a defense, it will make proving a case against him much more difficult.

Here are the defenses to a charge under Section 319(2)

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Again, these are all reasons why so few criminal hate crime prosecutions are pursued under Section 319(2).  It’s also why those thin-skinned ninnies prefer going after those whose “thoughts, beliefs, opinions and expressions” offend them using Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  It’s simply easier to harass someone with Section 13.

Bizarrely, the Supreme Court doesn’t believe the Truth should ever be a defense to an allegation of “hate crime.”

Here’s what the morons in overstuffed chairs had to say about the Truth in Sask Vs. Bill Whatcott:

“The discriminatory effects of hate speech are part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians.  As such, the legislature is entitled to a reasonable apprehension of societal harm as a result of hate speech.  The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision.  Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.  Allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness.”

Did you catch that?

“The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision.”

Even murderers and child molesters have defenses available to them!   Not so the man who dares speak his strongly-held “thoughts, beliefs, opinions and expressions.”

Really, why bother with a trial at all.  Simply charge the person, declare them guilty and send them off to the Gulag.

If Arthur Topham draws a judge with common sense and an understanding of the English language and Topham can prove his “thoughts, beliefs, opinions and expressions” are valid according to one or more of the sections defined under Section 319(3) he will be acquitted.

What really, then, is Arthur Topham’s greatest crime?  He speaks harshly about a particular group of people who fall under the protection of an “identifiable group” and has strongly-held beliefs for the opinions he expresses on RadicalPress.com.

He writes some of the commentary himself, others contribute the remainder. Some of what he writes is offensive, or at least it’s considered that way by some thin-skinned but politically savvy individuals.

Those individuals spend their days, apparently, scouring the internet for little-known websites whose content they disagree with. When they find such a website these serial complainers file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

When that doesn’t work or simply takes too long, as in the case of Arthur Topham, they push for criminal charges under Section 319(2).

Defending himself from a criminal hate crime charge is both time-consuming and expensive. Arthur Topham needs your help and your support.

Please mail your contribution in defense of Freedom of Speech, payable  to:

Arthur Topham
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defense Fund
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C. Canada  V2J 6T8.

You can also send your contribution via PayPal to support Arthur Topham’s fight against Internet Censorship and “hate speech” laws.  Please go to either http://www.radicalpress.com or http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com. The PayPal donate button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site.