Direct Link to Latest News


Arthur Topham Responds to "Hate Crime" Conviction

November 13, 2015

(left, Topham with wife Shasta)

"I will share the email I sent to Monika who also expressed dismay in the verdict. It may help explain the verdict in context.

So many other sites are now picking up on the story as well.

Crown could ask for  jail time but as you'll see in the email to Monika, they may have to wait a few years." 

"The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolutionm the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism."  (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, 1939, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 143-144).

We have De Facto Communism, which is satanism.

Dear Monika,

Bless you! But please don't be sad. In truth it wasn't a sad day at all. It was a day of victory in so many ways which will soon come out once the world realizes how this trial actually unfolded.

We will get the transcript of the trial and place it on the Internet and in that way we will expand that little gallery which you were privy to in Quesnel's supreme courtroom so that the whole world will be able to sit in and listen to what was presented to the jury. We, the truth revealers around the world are the real jury and those sitting in the global gallery.

It was Justice Butler who ruled on the original Charter application back in June of 2015 and stated that it would be best to address that issue after the trial. Well, it's now after the trial and given that I was found guilty on Count 1 that is the basis upon which we can now take this Sec. 319(2) challenge right to the highest court in the land for adjudication. 

At the moment the court system uses the Keegstra case to justify infringing upon our right to freedom of expression but as my defence counsel pointed out in our challenge, my case is far from what Keegstra's was. He was actually teaching his students in his classroom the truth and they were expected to answer questions in order to maintain their grades. While I find no fault with this of course given the context in which he was doing that it did set a negative precedent which allowed the SC of Canada to state that there were exceptions to our right to express ourselves. 

(De facto Communism has been imposed on the West.)

In the case of R v Roy Arthur Topham the situation is far from being like Keegstra case. As well, we've now entered into the record all of the controversial documents which the censors have used for decades to stymie our basic human rights. Those documents will come into play in the Charter challenge and more and more people will be exposed to them which is another positive aspect of it all.

The challenge for me will be, as always, to garner the financial support from supporters around the world to carry the challenge through to the top. This means raising funds to cover the cost of the court transcripts which is the first and fundamental step.

Barclay Johnson (my counsel) and I had discussions about this prior to him catching his flight out to Vancouver yesterday. He said that he was going to make the application to appeal the guilty finding on the grounds that it infringes upon Sec. 2b of the Charter. We have only 30 days from the time of the verdict to do this. Once it's filed the rest of the process will unfold over what could very likely be a number of years. Unfortunately for Crown they will just have to wait to sentence me until the challenge has been heard and a decision is handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. 

I couldn't believe how quick Crown was in trying to get my bail conditions changed so she could restrict my right to publish on my site (and likely anywhere!). I think it even took Justice Butler off guard. Thank goodness he didn't fall for it and ordered her to make an application which will be heard next Thursday. 

Hopefully this will clarify why I'm not all shook up at all over the outcome. Besides that, Barclay told me that a jury trial is not the type of trial that would set a legal precedent which would be helpful for others who might be attacked as I was/am. That type of precedent can only be accomplished by taking it to the SC of Canada and having the decision issue forth from the justices who preside there. By the time that occurs the people will be much better appraised of what we are truly facing in terms of our fundamental rights.

Love & Peace and eventual Justice for us all!

Mehr Licht!


Related- Talmud Cited by Defence at Topham Hate Crime Trial 
----------- "Jews are not our friends," E. Michael Jones 
Gilad Atzmon - Jewish Hatred is Permissable 

Donations can be made online via Arthur's GoGetFunding site or by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.

Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to - Arthur Topham - and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

New First Comment from Anon:

Let me ask you some questions - 

The Canadian legislation is EASY to avoid! There are so many "get out of jail" clauses. Lets stop the bullshit - Arthur hangs with the nazi crowd. I have read his work. It is inflammatory in nature and in tone. Sure, it is the truth. But if any halfwit wishes to read the ACTUAL legislation it does not stop "reasoned" and "balanced" discussion of all things holocausty and jewishy supremacist in nature. Why make it difficult? The "nasty/nazi" crowd is a albatross around your neck. They seek to worship a man and an ideology that puts to death the weak and vulnerable, not protect them. Ultimately let the historians debate and discuss Hitler for the truth of his actual place in history - our job is to destroy Jewish Power - not rehabilitate Adolf Hitler. If he was a saint fine - but leave it for later.

That argument is "free speech" and "truth" when the legislation itself (the only thing that matters) tells you quite specifically that "free speech" does not exist and has never existed - there are always restraints on speech - and that "truth" is not the ultimate defense (though relevant to varying degree's) but HOW the "truth" is presented. Secondary to that and always lurking in the background is links with "evil nazi's".

I put "how the truth is presented" in italics, bold and underlined because no matter where this type of legislation exists - THAT is the central theme, except Germany where breathing "jews might have a problem" gets you jail but even that can be avoided with a little forethought and creativity.

People will now see the Arthur Topham case and remain intimidated  - so they wont speak up because every twat keeps bleating "free speech" when the issue is not WHAT you are saying but the WAY you say it. Hence why Professor Kevin MacDonald still holds his post to this day at California State University and I must say he broaches some VERY sensitive issues that even make me cringe a little.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Arthur Topham Responds to "Hate Crime" Conviction "

TK said (November 14, 2015):

Even if Anon's comment is true, there is just one point I might highlight here ... that even setting the perimeters of "the Way" you present the Truth is STILL fascist control! When a society moves so far outside the premises of Justice and Morality that even the most most benign and fundamental Truth is considered violent and unacceptable ... then we must acknowledge that we have reached a point where the time for just waking up people (without any action) is over! ... Further, I always try to alert against false dichotomies ... and here, again, we are facing a Nazi supremacy VS. Jewish Supremacy tennis match where the heads of people are forever swinging like a pendulum, and deceived.

EVERY fellow reader must watch this video to understand the true Satanic nature of the Justice system (irrespective of their latest victim, and the psyop implications of their choice of the victim): .

[NOTE: Esp. at 6:47 of the video, Steven Rambam says how "the Dept. of Justice is not about prosecuting bad guys, it's just about winning and losing (viz., Fascist, Supremacist ARROGANCE), and how 98.5% of all arrested/prosecuted people [innocents] plead guilty"! And from the very start, they begin to "destroy" you!"]

[NOTE: In our bizarre world, Truth and Lies exist in layers ... and thus, even Rambam's last name --- rather Maimonide --- is interesting!]

DB said (November 14, 2015):

I have to wonder-
The jurists, are they all manipulated dupes? How many of them are mind controlled Jew worshipping Christians, in Zionists pockets? Or perhaps, were there any clever sayanim among them?

Man made laws that violate natural laws. Are no better than the vile Babylonian edicts read aloud in that courtroom.

How can any human being hear such vile "laws" against ALL people not born a jew. Are the Jurists in denial? Did cognitive dissonance muddle their brains? How can people hear vile TALMUDIC LAWS and yet, conclude the one who notices this and talks about it is "guilty", yet those who LIVE SUCH EDICTS-IN SECRET-BY DECEPTION- HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN TOPHAM AND THE WHOLE OF THE GOYIM- ALL OTHERS ON PLANET EARTH?

The jurors just determined its the RIGHT of dark occultist jews, to hypocritically bulldoze over the whole of humanity in Canada. If the jurors are Christian, or non jew, they not only duct taped Topham, but they unwittingly duct taped the majority including themselves.

This is like saying the woman who is raped can never ever speak against the rapist. Giving all rights to rapists everywhere. And rapists are special privileged don't cha know? And OMG, they read aloud the edicts regarding rape of tiny little children. Tophams free speech is in defense of said children, who need protection...One ought have the right to speak to warn or protect other people! Tragically trial by Jury does not guarantee fair trial. The system is too corrupted. The masses too mind controlled. This verdict is an INJUSTICE. Justice system? FOR WHOM? Certainly not for us proles.

This world is becoming too satanically possessed Henry. Unbearably so. **sigh**

Henrique said (November 14, 2015):

Finally a sensible comment, from "Anon". For freethinkers, as important as the content, is the format, since it's EXACTLY the format the system picks on to ridicule and defame them. This IS an IMPORTANT element with which to judge the possible honesty of people, specially some shady character on the internet you've never seen before.

No matter how important and sincere a man is, if his delivery is highly commercial/propagandistic/bombastic like Alex Jones', he's not serious, just a chancer, an opportunist filling a void, exploring a market segment for profit. David Icke can be more civil, since the garbage he pushes automatically turns him into a caricature in the eyes of anyone serious.

In my opinion, no one gets even close to Alan Watt, when it comes to balancing form and content in a civilized, down-to-Earth, non-euphoric ( and still humane ) rhetoric that NEVER appeals to the lowest common denominator. The distance between AJ and AW is that between a man who wants to enlist you into something and sell you the uniform and one who dialogues with you as a rational being.

I firmly think that low-level Masons are allowed to be more "Conservative" ( since they're not yet "enlightened enough" ), and there might be some directives to pick the "righteous anger" of the masses and lead it astray. Higher Masons lead the "emotional Left" ( Occupy, let's-make-a-better-world rabble ), and those even higher run the "Rational Left" ( Fabian Society, Bertrand Russel, Academia types ).

There are all kinds of Orders out there, all engaged in "thoughts' administration". Your mind probably belongs to one of them, if you can't run it yourself.

Glen said (November 14, 2015):

Sad to say but Al Thompson nailed it on this one. All one needs to do is read the works of retired federal judge Dale to verify everything Al says here. According to Judge Dale: “The best advice you will ever receive is to: avoid their courts whenever possible." ...

Another man who spent almost his entire life fighting the legal system was Eustace Mullins. He quickly learned he could not afford lawyer's, and in most cases they did him more harm than good. Eustace states: "Although many Americans express concern, but little else,about the growing crime problem, few of us understand that most crimes are committed in our courts. If a criminal commits an illegal act, this constitutes a crime. However, when he is taken to court, our legal system then becomes an integral part of the criminal process. The crime of which the criminal stands accused is nothing to the crimes which are now committed in the name of a "legal system." During the course of an ordinary legal action, whether it be criminal or civil, from three to ten additional crimes are usually committed. These crimes, in most instances, particularly if two attorneys are engaged, one as plaintiff and one as defendant, consist of subornation of perjury, suppression of evidence, intimidation or silencing of witnesses, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and denial of the rights of the injured party."

I would advise all to read Eustace's "The Rape Of Justice"

As for Anon, under the principals of natural Law if no one was physically harmed or no ones property was stolen, there was no crime. Until juror's learn this simple principle, there will be no justice.

Al Thompson said (November 14, 2015):

Unfortunately, as I predicted, Arthur lost his case because of some fundamental problems.

The judge is the enemy, the prosecutor is the enemy, and the defense attorney is the enemy spy. The courts are a Satanic process and their authority comes from force and violence. There is never any moral authority in a courtroom. The courtroom is only a place to mask the violence of the government.

Rights don't come from government. Rights come from the creator and they are evident in the natural law.

Arthur, and even his attorney tried to use rational thought, common sense, and right reason. However, the court system is idiotic run by a bunch of evil nimrods.

In my opinion, the best that can be achieved is damage control and getting the big dog to drop the bone.

Here are a few tips I've learned throughout the years.
If the judge asks: "Do you understand?" never say yes unless you like getting screwed. The proper answer is no and just leave it at that. Do not get into a pissing match with the black-robbed devil.

Then ask, if pressed: "What facts do you show that these laws apply to me?" I don't want your opinion, I just want the facts. They won't be able to answer that question with anything intelligent. Keep asking for the facts, especially regarding their authority to do anything. Jurisdiction can always be challenged.

But most of all, don't swear any oaths. This can get you into a heap of trouble. Swearing oaths is immoral and it violates the commandment of taking God's name in vain. The attorney is always under some kind of oath, so that will always spill over onto the defendant.

I wish nothing but the best for Arthur, but I don't see any good thing coming from his efforts at this point. I've been through this myself and I might suggest that anyone who gets involved in any kind of activism should learn how to deal with any legal problems themselves. Attorneys are over-priced and under-valued.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at