B.C. court rejects appeal of man who said Jews should be sterilized – Canadian Jewish News (blog)

The British Columbia Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of a Quesnel, B.C., man convicted of promoting hatred against Jewish people in November 2015.

On his website, RadicalPress.com, Arthur Topham wrote that Jews should be forcibly sterilized. He described Canada as being controlled by the Zionist lobby and said Jewish synagogues are synagogues of Satan.

Harry Abrams, who was the representative for the Bnai Brith Canadas League for Human Rights in 2007, when he was the first to raise the alarm about Tophams anti-Semitic writing, said hed like to see Topham receive the maximum sentence of two years.

READ: RABIDLY ANTI-SEMITIC B.C. MAN CONVICTED OF HATE CRIME

He was convicted in 2015 by a jury of his peers, and hes dragged it out, kept everything up on his website since then and added to it over all this time, said Abrams, who now serves as chair of community relations for the Jewish Federation of Victoria and Vancouver Island.

Its all been hateful, deliberate and with the intention of causing maximum pain and fear to Jews. Hes a sick guy and there has to be some kind of backstop on this.

The Feb. 20 ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court is an important one, said Aidan Fishman, who worked closely with Amanda Hohmann, national director of Bnai Briths League for Human Rights, on this case.

The argument by Tophams lawyer, Barclay W. Johnson, that the law that criminalizes hate speech in Canada is unconstitutional, had no merit in my opinion, he said.

Basically they were arguing that the presence of the Internet, and the fact that information is more widely available because of it, changes whether that material is constitutional or not. The judge firmly rejected that argument. He wrote in his decision that it actually makes the offence even more serious, by virtue of the fact that its much easier to disseminate hate today, Fishman added.

This also means that when faced with incidents of hate, especially online, police and prosecutors should press charges because theres no evidence those charges wont succeed, so theres no excuse for not enforcing them.

Abrams speculated Topham might try to appeal this conviction to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Johnson said he had not received any instructions from his client about an appeal.

He noted that he shared office space with Tophams former lawyer, Doug Christie, who died in March 2013 after a long career in which he gained notoriety for defending Holocaust deniers such as Ernst Zundel and James Keegstra.

On his deathbed, I told [Christie] Id look after the rest of his files, and this was one of them, Johnson said.

My interest was piqued by going over the issues related to freedom of expression. Ninety-nine percent of the material Arthur Topham posted from other sources is available on the Internet, so the question is, what do you do about all this wickedness? I dont think you use the Criminal Code, he said. We argued that the protections afforded in Canada are of little assistance if you weigh them against whats available worldwide.

Johnson said Topham does not have a criminal record, and hes hopeful he would not serve time in jail.

But Abrams begged to differ.

I really think he should spend a couple of years in jail. Hes sadistic and racist, and hes worked really hard for it.

Johnson said Tophams sentencing is scheduled for March 10.

Read more:

B.C. court rejects appeal of man who said Jews should be sterilized – Canadian Jewish News (blog)

Related Post

February 23, 2017   Posted in: Ernst Zundel |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."