The Expert Witness - Part 1 + The Extraordinary Trial Of Arthur Topham

By Gilad Atzmon: The following is the first part of Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial.  This part contains a brief summary of Atzmon’s perception of the Jews and their politics.  In the next part Atzmon will explain how these ideas serve to vindicate all forms of criticism of Jewish politics, ideology, symbols, rituals and so on.      

Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, can you please elaborate on the notion of Jewish Identity Politics.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Identity politics is a relatively new study that looks into the meaning and the means of identification of various groups. Instead of asking what is X or Y, identity politics delves into the question of what identifying as X or Y may entail.  I have gone through the court case documentation and detected a considerable lack of understanding of the complexity of the terminology related to Jewish matters: identity, religion, race and politics. In particular, I encountered confusion in the comprehension of the crucial distinction among:

  A: Judaism (the religion)
  B:  The Jews (the people)
  C: Jewishness (the ideology)
In order to grasp these notions we must elaborate first on the meaning of Jewish Identity Politics.

Instead of asking what or who are the Jews, we will simplify the question. We will ask what those who identify themselves as Jews mean by that.
Years of studying of Jewish identity politics led me to the conclusion that we are dealing with three non-exclusive categories.
A: The Religion – people who identify as Jews because they believe and follow the Torah/Talmud. Ladies and gentlemen-this category is innocent. The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people.
B: Ethnicity – people who identify as Jews due to ancestry and family lineage. Ladies and gentlemen, this category is also innocent. Having a Jewish mother doesn’t make one into a war criminal!
C: Politics – those who identify politically as Jews. Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, this category is far from innocent. Zionism-the promise to bring about a Jewish homeland in Palestine was executed at the expense of another people: namely the Palestinians. But Zionism is not alone. In fact all forms of Jewish politics are racially exclusive. Ask yourself, can Mr. Topham or any other ‘Goy’ (gentile, non-Jew) in this room join the group ‘Jews for Peace’ or ‘Jews for Human Rights’? The answer is NO. And why? Because the Goyim in the room are not racially qualified. The conclusion is inevitable. The 3rd category is racially oriented and to a certain extent, racist to the bone.   ‘Jews for peace’ is in practice as racist and exclusive as “Aryans for Palestine” or “Whites for free love.” And yet, most of us would react angrily to White only clubs but we are somehow forgiving when it comes to Jews only associations.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, please make sure that we understand you correctly. Are Jews a race?

 Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Not at all. Jews are neither a race nor they are a biological entity, but Jewish politics is always racist or at least driven by racial orientation!

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  How does the model you sketched above help to understand Israeli politics, Jewish Identity or progress in this court case?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: In practice, every Jew who identifies as a Jew subscribes to one, two or three of the categories above.  Let’s examine the case of an American Jewish settler living in occupied West Bank. Yes he follows the Torah (1st category), yes he is Jew by ancestry (2nd category) and certainly, he identifies politically as a Jew (3rd category). But what about the Jewish Marxists who went as far as Spain to fight Franco in the name of the revolution? These revolutionary Jews didn’t follow the Jewish religion, they were not the 1st category. They only subscribed to the 2nd and the 3rd categories. What about Noam Chomsky? He is not a religious Jew. Again, he only subscribes to the 2nd and the 3rd   categories. He is a Jew by ancestry and also identifies politically as a Jew[1]. Albert Einstein? The Jury is out on that one but it would be reasonable to argue that he subscribes to the 2nd category.

I argue that it is the Jewish political element, the subscription to the 3rd category that leads towards some unsavoury acts whether they be the cold blood murder of Palestinian families or extensive Jewish Lobbying in the West.  Those acts deserve criticism, politically and ideologically.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  But how does this model help this court to further its understanding the case of Arthur Topham or the accusation of hate speech?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: As I mentioned before, categories 1 & 2 are totally innocent. And indeed, no one really criticises Neturei Karta (Torah Jews) or Satmar Jews in related to Israeli crimes in Palestine. These two ultra orthodox Jewish groups made it clear that they oppose the crimes committed by the Jewish State and Zionism. Moreover, nowadays, no one really criticises Jews as a race, biology or ethnicity. What we do see is opposition Jewish politics and ideology. However and this is crucial. In the West we tend to believe that every politics & ideology must be subject to political and ideological criticism. My Lord, if every form of politics and ideology must be subject to criticism, this rule must be applied also to Jewish politics and ideology, and as far as I can tell, Jewish politics and ideology deserves a lot of criticism. 

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  But it seems as if Jews are often feel hated if their politics is criticised.
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon:  Correct, yet, the fact that Jews feel hated doesn’t mean that anyone really hates them. It is also be possible that some Jews feel hated because they actually project their own hatred onto others.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  I am slightly confused here it seems as if we are dealing with a sophisticated multi layered identity. 
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: You are totally correct, this topic is indeed confusing and for a reason. Contemporary Diaspora Jewish politics struggles to maintain this confusion because it stifles any from of criticism of Jewish politics. In order to understand this construct we should imagine the following kosher trinity.

When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc’) some Jews are“racially offended” in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned.   When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple, yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary 3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to supress any possible criticism.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: In the last 7 days this court learned about some very problematic segments within the Talmud and the Torah. Yet, you insist here that the religion is innocent. Can you please enlighten us about the role of religion?
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: This is a crucial point. While I argue that the Jewish religion is an innocent category, this is far from saying that Judaism is clean of some very problematic teachings and even racist and supremacist preaching.
Here is the problem. The historical facts are plain. In spite of some very problematic Judaic teachings that are both Talmud and Torah related, rabbinical Jews have never been involved in any collective murderous attempt against anyone else. This fact suggests that in spite of some horrid segments, it was actually the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries. Such a view vindicates the Talmud despite its uncomfortable teachings. But things are about to get very uncomfortable now.
It is not a secret that in contemporary Israel, it is the orthodox Jews and the followers of the Talmud who lead the most racist and murderous abuse of the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, we have a clear question to answer. If it was the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries, why doesn’t it restrain orthodox Israeli Jews now? The orthodox rabbis argue that it is the addition of political orientation that interfered with Judaic peaceful teaching. 
Another possible answer is that we were wrong all along.  It wasn’t the Talmud that restrained the Jews, actually it was the ‘anti-Semitic’ church that repressed Jews. The collapse of the Church together with the rise of Israel and the influential Jewish lobbies in the West have led to a severe sense of impunity that is translated into a tsunami of violence and rise of Jewish supremacy that is religiously driven.
Here are some marbles taken from the Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, an Israeli Chief Sepharadi Rabbi. http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/
On Goyim:
“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”  Weekly Saturday night sermon in October 2010
 On Muslims:
 “They’re stupid. Their religion is as ugly as they are.”
— Weekly Saturday night sermon in December 2009.
 I cannot judge whether this is indeed the case but I can clearly say that the only way to deal with these issues is to discuss them openly and to make sure that as much information as possible is available to all of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, I do believe that this is the principle that guides Arthur Topham, who for over 30 years has made some of the most important texts on the matter available to us all.
I wouldn’t know about‘Germany Must Perish’ unless Mr Topham had made it into a satire. Would you? Even the Crown Expert, Mr Rudner, admitted that he wasn’t aware of the text and actually confirmed by this admission the importance of the Radical Press. Two days ago Mr Rudner admitted that ‘Germany Must Perish’ is a hateful text. Congratulation to Mr Rudner. It took the Jewish world more than 7 decades to denounce one of the most horrible Jewish texts ever. Is not Mr Rudner long awaited denunciation the direct outcome of Mr Topham’s satire?

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  History. In your book, ‘The Wandering Who,’ you delve into the notion of History and Jewish history in particular. Can you please elaborate on the topic and its relevance within the context of ‘Holocaust denial’ and so-called ‘hatred?’
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: History becomes a meaningful adventure once we learn to narrate the past as we move along. This means that as we are changing constantly, our understanding of the past is also shifting. Accordingly, history, at its best, is the ability to visit, re-visit and revise our past as we progress in time. This understanding of history must be applied to any chapter in our past including the Holocaust.
It is no secret that Jewish institutions oppose the Holocaust being subjected to revision and the outcome of this opposition is tragic, especially for the Jews. Instead of letting the Holocaust become a dynamic universal ethical lesson it has been reduced into the new canonical Jewish religion. It has its shrines (museums) prophets, preachers and even a new God figure: ‘The Jew,’ the one who was forsaken by God, yet resurrected himself from the slaughter, and against all odds, made Israel into a nuclear super power that too often threatens world peace. 
Once again, our duty to the Jews, to humanity, to Canada as well as to Israel is to fight this intellectual stagnation. To burst the bubble with an injection of refreshing and controversial thoughts. But isn’t that what Radical Press and Arthur Topham have been doing for the last 35 years?
Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the most disturbing images of National Socialist Germany’s persecution of the Jews are those old archive films of book burning. It is rather disturbing that in Canada in 2015 it is actually the Jewish lobby that leads the call for book burning. One would expect Jews to draw the necessary lesson from the Shoah. Freedom of speech and expression are our most precious assets. It is what made Athens into the core of universal thinking. It is down to us to keep this promise for the sake of our future generations and humanism in general.   
 

  [1] Professor Chomsky recently endorsed Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP): http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/mazal-tov-to-chomsky-and-jews-voice-for-peace.html

Source

________

The Extraordinary Trial Of Arthur Topham

http://dissidentvoice.org/
http://www.mwcnews.net/
Part 1
by Eve Mykytyn 
Five security guards, members of the RCMP, two in bulletproof vests, all entrants pass through metal detectors, undergo a wand search, check all electronics including cell phones and have their bags meticulously scrutinized. Why all the security? The crown was presenting its criminal case against Arthur Topham, for the crime of “hate.’
The Law
Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
      (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
      (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.
      (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
      (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
      (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
      (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense.
This week I attended some of the extraordinary trial of Arthur Topham in the Supreme Court (the highest provincial trial court) in Quesnel, British Columbia. As a lawyer, the differences in procedure between American and Canadian courts were of interest to me. Ahead of the trial, I read a little about the Canadian legal system and found that on paper the differences appeared minor. I don’t know if the huge differences in practice that I observed in this trial has to do with the way trials are usually conducted in Canada, the understandable loosening of formality in a court in a small town and/or the nature of the trial.
The Background
The history of Mr. Topham’s travails can be found here.
It is sufficient to understand that this trial follows eight years of harassment. Mr. Topham has already had to close his successful remodeling business. This is a criminal trial, and Mr. Topham could go to prison for two years. Mr. Topham and his wife live on a remote property on which they maintain a chicken coop, grow vegetables and engage in other rural activities. But it is clear that Mrs. Topham could not live there alone. These are not wealthy people. Mrs. Topham told me that she is not a political person, but she loves and supports her husband and believes in free speech. The defendant and his wife have exhibited bravery, courtesy and calm to a degree that is awe inspiring.
The police arrested Mr. Topham for ‘hate’ after they received complaints from various Jewish people who found his writing hateful. Although the police clearly knew where he lived, they arrested Topham as he and his wife were driving, leaving his wife stranded and Mr. Topham in jail. While jailed, Mr. Topham’s house was searched and his computers, shotguns and other items were taken. (Shotguns are essential in an area where grizzlies often decide to take up residence on the porch.)
The Trial
I understand that before I arrived, the Crown presented the arresting and investigating officers. Clearly the officers are not qualified to establish ‘hate,’ so how does the Crown do this? There is no victim to present, no one whose injuries the jury must assess, instead it is to the jury to decide if ‘hate’ is present, no injury need be shown.
The Crown chose to use an expert witness to show hate, and qualified Len Rudner as an expert in Judaism and anti-Semitism. Mr. Rudner’s biography indicates that he is a ‘professional Jew,’ in that he has been employed for the last 15 years by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its successor organization, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner has attempted to force Mr. Topham’s internet service provider to shut down his web site, and has lodged civil complaints against Mr. Topham.
The crown used its questioning of Rudner to introduce what it considered to be the most damaging articles on Topham’s site, Radical Free Press (RFP). These included a list of books and articles, all of which are easily accessible on the internet and/or for sale at Amazon.ca.
Most of these publications accuse Jews of some pretty nasty politics. What at first appeared to be the Crown’s most damning evidence was a picture of a stereotyped Jew holding puppets that were Canadian politicians. On cross examination, it was hard for Mr. Rudner to counter what a careful viewing showed to be a clear political statement. I think the shocking picture of the Jew served to make the statement more powerful. But is it the job of the court to evaluate the strength of a political cartoon?
Without going to the truth of the matters presented, I am troubled that Mr. Topham is on trial for reprinting sources that are widely available in Canada. Again, on cross examination, Mr. Rudner had to admit that this was so. A quick google search for “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” reveals hundreds of sources that display the protocols in full.
The procedure, at least in this court, was that all objections had to be heard outside the presence of the jury. This meant that each objection forced the jury to leave the room (not the judge and the lawyers) thus making an objection, even for the record, was a cumbersome and time consuming process.
In one of these interminable objection interludes, the Crown stated that ‘free speech is not on trial here.” Shockingly, Judge Butler echoed her sentiments. Legal fictions (such as that all lawyers are capable of providing an adequate defense) are generally employed to allow the system to work. In this case, the legal fiction went to the charge itself. Mr. Topham is on trial for writing and for publishing articles that presumably reflect his beliefs. What else is free speech if not that?
Mr. Rudner indicated under direct examination that he was the author of the written expert opinion he provided to the court. This was troubling, because the Crown had originally employed Bernie Farber as its expert, and Mr. Farber had provided an opinion that was word for word the same as Mr. Rudner’s. If Mr. Rudner did not commit perjury, he was at least deceptive in his presentation of his expert opinion.
The Defense
Barclay Johnson, defense attorney extraordinaire, gave an opening argument that was an impassioned call for freedom of thought and speech. Later the Crown objected, but the damage so-called had been done. Mr. Johnson endured a tongue lashing and a civil procedure lesson from the judge. The jury was instructed to ignore some of Mr. Johnson’s speech. I assume that this helped plant the speech more firmly in their minds.

Mr. Topham countered the charge of hate and argued as a defense that the writing was political with an expert of his own. Gilad Atzmon, the iconoclastic jazz musician, writer and philosopher volunteered his time to help. It seems wrong to enjoy a presentation when a man’s freedom is at stake, but it was delightful to watch Mr. Atzmon ignore or flaunt every rule of procedure and get away with it.

Atzmon was qualified as an expert on Jewish Identity Politics a topic that clearly few in the court had heard of. In his most amusing argument on the subject, Atzmon explained that there was a section on identity politics in every bookshop, and that topics included the LBGT community. Faced with political correctness, the court backed off and agreed to allow Atzmon in as an expert.

Atzmon began by explaining his system of characterization. He divides ‘the Jews’ into three non-exclusive categories. The first, Judaism, is made up of religious Jews. The second, Jews, are people who are Jewish by an accident of birth. The third, and most important category for this purpose is ‘Jewishness,’ those who identify politically as Jews. Mr. Atzmon described the first two categories as innocent. Objections were raised, innocent is, after all, a legal conclusion and if the first two are innocent, the third is, by implication, guilty. Judge Butler agreed with the Crown’s objection and then allowed Atzmon to proceed in describing the first two categories as innocent. From then on, the defense attorney, the prosecution and the judge adopted these categories for clarity of discussion.
Atzmon argued that contemporary opposition to Jewry is driven by political and ideological arguments; that no one criticizes Jews as a race or a biology. There is little criticism of Judaism, the religion, as a whole, but there has been some criticism leveled at a few aspects of the religion such as blood rituals and goy hatred. The thrust of his argument was that Jewish politics and ideology must be subject to criticism like all other politics and ideologies.
Like a rabbi on acid, Atzmon explained his philosophy, allowed few questions, and browbeat the attorneys. He dealt with his own philosophical approach to Jewishness and the dangers of believing oneself ‘chosen’ and then he got in a few swipes at categories one and two as well. The jury was mesmerized. Later, Atzmon told friends that he had directed his remarks to the juror sleeping in the first row. If he could be made to listen, presumably the others could as well.
Atzmon made the point that many of the most apparently anti-Semitic writings were made by the early Zionists. According to Atzmon, Herzl and others saw a problem with European Jewry and thought that the existence of a homeland could cure problems such as usury, discrimination against non-Jews, exclusiveness, etc. The take away is that if Jews are entitled to criticize Jews, why can’t other people? This is especially true because the Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in government, finance and the media. They clearly have the means to counter criticism if they choose to do so.

• Part 2 will cover the closing arguments and the verdict.

Source