I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
Bureaucrats are, generally speaking, a cowardly bunch, but the response given to Joseph Hickey, Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) about Arthur Topham’s Freedom of Speech case is truly pathetic even by that low standard.
Joseph Hickey’s letter was written directly to the Honourable Suzanne Anton, Attorney General of British Columbia.
While addressed specifically to her, it seems Ms. Anton is a little to busy to respond to a letter of inquiry from the head of a civil liberties group. She ordered some anonymous government minion to respond on her behalf instead.
The cowardly bureaucrat answering Mr. Hickey’s questions, or more accurately evading them, refused to put his or her name on the letter.
I suppose they were terrified someone like me might get a hold of their non-responsive letter and their name and mock them mercilessly for their evasions and non-answers.
They would be correct.
I would do that.
I would take great pleasure in it, to be precise. For the moment I must take what pleasure I can in mocking the nameless bureaucrat…
But I digress…
As I’ve written repeatedly in regards to Arthur Topham’s case, the Criminal Code of Canada makes it very clear that a prosecution under Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws, including Section 319, CANNOT happen unless the Attorney General of the province personally signs off on the case.
It’s written right into the Criminal Code.
No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
The unnamed bureaucratic minion starts the response off by completely ignoring Section 318 (3) of the Criminal Code, which is the primary subject of Joseph Hickley’s letter.
Your letter of September 24, 2014, addressed to the Honourable Suzanne Anton, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, has been forwarded to the Criminal Justice Branch for a response. The Criminal Justice Branch is responsible for the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions in British Columbia.
This is complete and utter hogwash.
While the Criminal Justice Branch may be responsible for “the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions” in most cases, that authority resides specifically and ONLY with the BC’s Attorney General in the Arthur Topham criminal prosecution under Section 319(2).
Quoting the OCLA’s most recent letter:
Criminal Code (at s. 2) expressly defines “Attorney General” as meaning “the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes his or her lawful deputy”.
The proceedings against Mr. Topham (R v Topham) are taken in BC.
Thus, to use the colloquial expression, the buck stops at your office, Madame Attorney General.
After claiming Attorney General Anton is not responsible for Topham’s prosecution the cowardly bureaucrat then drones on about presumption of innocence, something the Crown prosecutor in Arthur Topham’s case has repeatedly tried to quash.
From the day Arthur Topham was arrested until today, the Crown Prosecutor has tried to strip Arthur Topham of his Right to Freedom of Speech. That would be “guilty until proven innocent“, the exact opposite of presumption of innocence.
Arthur Topham cannot even name the two men who initiated the criminal code complaint against him, serial human rights complainant Richard Warman and his buddy Harry Abrams, British Columbia representative of B’nai B’rith Canada.
Should Arthur Topham write those names publicly he is in contempt of court.
How absurd is that?
After further droning about how Attorney General Suzanne Anton isn’t actually responsible for the Topham case the unnamed bureaucrat then attempts to blame Peter MacKay, Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, despite the fact MacKay is not the person who must personally approve a criminal charge under Section 319; Suzanne Anton is.
If you can stomach it the cowardly unsigned response to Hickey’s original letter is available for download here at the link below. This PDF file also includes Joseph Hickey’s second letter clarifying Minister Anton’s responsibilities, including a repeated demand she rescind her approval of the prosecution of Arthur Topham.
http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-10-02-Letter-OCLA-to-BC-AG.pdf
If you are a British Columbia resident I urge you to write Minister Anton and personally demand she rescind her consent for Arthur Topham’s criminal prosecution. As I’ve explained above she must personally approve charges under Section 319 of the Criminal Code before they can be prosecuted.
You can reach Ms. Anton here:
Hon. Suzanne Anton
Attorney General of BC
Room 232, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Also, please sign the OCLA petition demanding BC Attorney General Suzanne Anton rescind her consent for Arthur Topham’s criminal prosecution under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
You can expect that the majority of politicians and bureaucrats to be politically correct cowards who buckle to the facism of the mindless grazing herd in most if not all things. You can also expect pc activists to be manure munching bottom feeders whose diet gives vent to their corrupt personalities and demeanor. They accept freedom of expression ONLY if they approve of what others have to say. In that reality, the bastard still lives (fascism) and has been embraced to the breasts of those who were and are of less worth than those shot during the last great war.
I’m a little confused…..The first part of your article states that no Prosecution can begin until the Attorney General signs off on it…or authorizes it. (As though this was not done)
However, a Prosecution has obviously begun, and therefore authorized correct?
In closing your article….you ask we write and have the A.G. rescind her authorization ??
To be clear, the AG MUST have approved the charges against Arthur Topham or they could NOT move forward. It’s written into the Criminal Code of Canada. The anonymous bureaucritter attempted to say the AG does not have to approve the charge under Section 319(2) but for this specific charge it NOT optional. The AG MUST approve of the charges, hence my requesting people write to her and ask that she rescind that approval. Without her approval the charges must be dropped.
We have had the latter day inquisitors of Section 13 HRA imposing their politically correct fascism on people who committed no crime except state an alternate opinion to the politically correct inanity of the plaintiffs, and that was finally ended with the deposit of that section on the manure pile this past summer.
To identify the biggest sector of society that is the most damgerous to freedom and justice, do a search on the authors and supporters of that section and mark them. Hint – academics