DOUG CHRISTIE
AND EZRA LEVANT ON SUNTV
PROPAGANDA ALERT
.
What we have here is a
grand slam of hasbara that is discernible to the observant eye. We have the
author presenting a video of Ezra Levant (Yes, he is.) ranting on about Arthur
Topham to his lawyer, Douglas Christie. While presenting himself as an ardent
supporter of free speech, and himself as highly tolerant of Arthur’s right to
use it he manages to portray Arthur as a marginalized eccentric.
This is the classical way
to destroy an enemy as we all know. Tie them up with the law, fighting to
survive, destroy them in the eye of the public in any way possible. And of
course media whores such as Mr. Levant are given free rein to spout their slurs
and innuendos as “freedom of speech.”
The second slam is from
Marc Lemire who writes about an excellent point in the Topham case but also uses
the opportunity to bring forward the Islamophobic slant of hasbara. This may be
an oversight on Mr. Lemire’s behalf, but it does glare as an example. of such.
I am reproducing the entire article so that you, dear reader, may absorb the lesson of hasbara in the making.
.
By Marc Lemire
November 10, 2012
Doug Christie on Sun TV
Doug Christie on Sun TV
Doug Christie talks to
Ezra Levant about the Arthur Topham's criminal hate speech complaint.
You can find out more about the Topham case at http://www.radicalpress.com. Topham was charged under Canada's ridiculous criminal "hate" law - Section 319 of the Criminal Code. This nutty law tries to control human emotions, and as the norm for so-called "hate" laws ... only applies to one certain type of opinion.
When "hate" is promoted in Canada, it is only criminalized if the communicator of the message is an alleged "nazi" or white "anti-Semite". Just look at all the cases stretching back to the 1970's. If you hate whitey ~ no problem. If you are Muslim and hate Jews ~ no problem. If you are Jewish and hate Muslims ~ no problem.
Here is proof of my point:
On the same day that white skinned ~ alleged "nazi" and "anti-Semite" Arthur Topham was charged with criminal 'hate speech", the police looked at brown skinned Muslim hate against Jewish Canadians, and found no criminal "hate".
In the Alice in Wonderland world of human rights and 'hate speech" ... some "hate" is criminal, while other "hate" is just fine.
Lets compare for a second, what Arthur Topham wrote to what was "anti-Jewish
Curriculum" at the East end Toronto Madrassah. One was criminalized, the
other was not.
Arthur Topham posted on his website:
Now let’s compare what the Muslim's East end Madrassah (Toronto) allegedly
taught to children in their Curriculum.
This again is quotes from the National
Post's article (published Nov 8, 2012). I cannot actually verify their
authenticity:
.
Arthur Topham posted on his website:
It’s been ongoing since the day I first openly criticized the Zionist Jews and their political dogma or ideology known as Zionism. That was back during the heady last days of the 20th Century when I was publishing my monthly hard copy edition of The Radical, an alternative tabloid which ran for forty-two consecutive editions ending in June of 2002.and from the National Post which described what Topham allegedly said and did:
The Biological Jew depicts Jews as parasites that suck the blood from their “host” societies while the Protocols is a fraudulent book that purports to describe a conspiracy for worldwide Jewish domination.
Police arrested Mr. Topham and questioned him on May 16. According to a transcript of his police interview that was posted online, he asked the investigating officer, Det. Const. Terry Wilson of the B.C. Hate Crime Team, whether he had been trained in Tel Aviv or whether Mossad had come to Canada to train him.
He lectured the officer about how Jews “control what you’re doing” and said they had “created the unit you’re working for.” He asked the officer if he was a Christian and scolded him for what he was doing.
“These guys have spent the last 2,000 years trying to destroy our religion, and you like a Judas are out here like a, like one of their dogs chasing down people who are trying to defend the Christian religion,” he said. “You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”
.
“End of Jewish Plots and Treacheries: Ever since the Prophet’s entry into Madina, the treacherous Jews had vehemently opposed him and his Islamic call, evoking memories of their hostility to the previous Prophet, Jesus Christ, half a millennium ago. The crafty Jews entered into an alliance with the polytheist Quraish in a bid to stamp out Islam. They conspired to kill Prophet Muhammad despite the fact that he was lenient towards them and had treated them kindly, hoping to convince them of Islam’s truth. But eventually as Jewish plots and aggressions increased, he had no choice other than to take up arms against them, in order to protect Islam and the Muslims. At the battle of Khaiber which is famous for Imam Ali’s heroic exploits, the Prophet defeated them ending Jewish intrigues and conspiracies in Arabia.” [Emphasis added]Why is it that so-called "hate" laws only ever target one certain opinion, and all the other haters are given a free pass?
Would Canada's
criminal prohibition against "hate" ever be found constitutional if
the courts looked at the actual effects and operation of the law?
After 30 years, it is as clear as day; this law targets a certain range of opinions in Canada, and has little to do with actually removing hate. As we have documented over and over, some hate in Canada is perfectly fine and non-criminal.If you have an opinion which can be classified as "nazi" or "anti-Semitic" and you're White, expect the state to drop the 'trifecta of tolerance' on you. Which is a three stage, proven framework, to break and humiliate the victim ~ all at the expense of Canadian taxpayers who foot the bill for this multi-million dollar make-work project. The stages can be defined as: ostracized, vilified and criminalized.
Section 319 of the Criminal Code is an affront to justice and freedom in Canada and should be repealed immediately. Canada is a tolerant country with intelligent people, and we do not need the nanny state (at the behest of special interest groups and plaintiffs of fortune) looking over the shoulders of people and parsing the words of individuals that wish to express non-violent opinions on controversial subjects as race or religion.
We have tried the censorship of criminal and civil prohibition's against "hate" speech since the 1970's with little positive effect. Isn't it time to give freedom a chance?Marc Lemire is a Free Speech Activist and the only Canadian to ever win a Section 13 case
No comments:
Post a Comment
If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.