Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules in Favor of Intervenor Status in RADICALPRESS.COM Sec. 13(1) Complaint Case Granted Doug Christie & Canadian Free Speech League 
by Radical Press

RadicalPress.com Publisher/Editor Arthur Topham says he received written confirmation June 2, 2009 that Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member Karen Jensen has handed down her ruling in the ongoing dispute over free speech lawyer Doug Christie’s application to intervene on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League (CFSL) in the Abrams v. RadicalPress.com “hate crimes” complaint case now before the Tribunal.

The case (T1360/9008) is the latest in a series of similar charges laid under the Canadian Human Rights Act’s controversial Sec. 13(1) “hate crimes” legislation against other notable Canadian writers and publishers such as Mark Steyn of Maclean’s magazine and Ezra Levant, former publisher of the now defunct Western Standard and was brought against Topham and his website RadicalPress.com by Harry Abrams, BC representative of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada along with co-complainant Anita Bromberg, legal representative of said Jewish advocacy group back in November of 2007.

 

The Complainants  are contending that Topham is publishing articles on his website which promote “ongoing hatred toward Jews and/or citizens of Israel.”

Christie, Canada’s Internationally-recognized free speech lawyer, who has represented such controversial figures as James Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, John Ross Taylor and Malcolm Ross before the Supreme Court of Canada, David Ahenakew before the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Lady Jane Birdwood before the Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal in London, England, and numerous other persons in cases involving free speech, first became interested in the case back in February of 2009 and submitted a motion to the CHR Tribunal on behalf of the CFSL that it be granted interested party status.

Since February Marvin Kurz, head counsel for B’nai Brith Canada and the Complainants, has been arguing against the granting of said status to the CFSL on grounds that the Canadian Free Speech League is not a legitimate organization but only Christie’s “alter ego.”

Forced by the Tribunal to re-apply after having his first application denied Christie and the CFSL submitted arguments countering Kurz’s reasons.

In her June 2, 2009 ruling Tribunal member Jensen stated:

“Mr. Christie has represented a number of litigants in matters involving freedom of speech at all levels of court and tribunal. He states that the purpose of his representation in the present case would be to assist in representing the free speech argument from a different perspective than that of the parties. He would point to areas of common interest in the widest range of discourse on public matters and the areas of the law which support this contention.”

Having considered Kurz’s arguments Jensen then went on to further conclude:

“I am satisfied that the CFSL will add significantly to the legal positions of the parties in the present case. The CFSL intends to present a broader perspective on the constitutional issues raised in this case than may be presented by the Respondent [RadicalPress.com]. Counsel for the CFSL will draw on his experience and knowledge in representing other litigants in similar matters and the CFSL’s experience in raising public awareness about the issues raised in the complaint. In my view, this experience and knowledge will assist in stimulating a vigorous debate on the constitutional issues raised in the complaint. The fact that Mr. Christie is bringing his own experiences and knowledge to bear on the debate is not of concern to me. The members of organizations do bring their personal knowledge, as well as their experience in the organization to discussions about issues that are of concern to the organization. Therefore, the CFSL’s request for interested party status is granted. The CFSL will have the right to cross-examine witnesses and to make final submissions on the constitutional issues only.”

Topham, who has maintained from the start that the charges are purely political in nature and have as their prime motive the censoring of all written negative commentary and opinion critical of the Zionist state of Israel, is pleased with the Tribunal ruling.

“This case, of all the previous ones to date, has received absolutely no attention in the mainstream media,” Topham stated. “It’s been a virtual black out from day one in terms of any coverage, and the reason for this,” Topham suggests, “is because I have been openly critical, not only of Zionism and Israel but also of the complicit nature of Canada’s mainstream media in supporting the current federal Conservative government’s unstinting support for Israel as well as Jewish advocacy groups such as B’nai Brith Canada, whose influence upon the Harper government is now clearly evident.”

Topham feels that Doug Christie and the CFSL’s intervention in this case will definitely help give it the increased exposure it deserves. “It’s not about hatred toward Jews or the citizens of Israel,” Topham stated. “That, and the accompanying smear of “racism” and “anti-Semitism” is a ruse. It’s about given fair, balanced, informative coverage to the Canadian public on issues in the Middle East and elsewhere; coverage that is now severely lacking due to the monopolized, biased nature of the pro-Zionist publishing companies who control Canada's major news networks.”

Topham, who filed a constitutional challenge to the Sec. 13 legislation on March 21, 2009 also stated, “Douglas Christie and the CFSL’s reasons for wanting to intervene in this case are not only legitimate but paramount to gaining a fair and balanced hearing on the important issue of Section 13(1).

 

He feels that, “If this section isn’t removed from the Act it will continue to increase the already staggering inequities thus far created by its misuse and bring further disgrace and shame upon Canada’s once proud reputation as a democratic nation that deeply honours and respects the concept of freedom of speech and open debate for all Canadians.”