Preface:
The following letter is a reply sent to Nancy Lafontant, Registry Officer and Gregory M. Smith, Registrar of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a quasi-judicial federal agency now in the process of preparing for a Tribunal hearing regarding the complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission by Harry Abrams and The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada against RadicalPress.com.
The reply contains the argument put forth by RadicalPress.com owner and publisher Arthur Topham that this is a case of an intentional attack upon one of the last remaining alternative news network in Canada – one willing to stand up to the Zionist-controlled media and the assorted Zionist Jewish lobby groups that hold way too much influence over Canada’s Judiciaries and governments, both federally and provincially.
The means being employed by B’nai Brith Canada is the infamous anti-hate law contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act and known as Sec. 13(1).
The RadicalPress.com publisher maintains that the Tribunal’s offer to “mediate” is but a meaningless formality due to the fact than never in the history of the CHRC or the CHRT has a case been won by any of the numerous respondents who have been entrapped by this vile legal trap, one that NEVER allows the Truth to get in its way. NOT UNLESS OF COURSE YOU HAPPEN TO BE JEWISH AND PRO-ZIONIST!
The letter outlines much of the efforts by other victims of this Bolshevik bit of legislation as well as attempts by sane people across Canada to convince the federal government to toss this specious piece of pro-Zionist handiwork into the trash bin of history and at the same time dismantle all the Human Rights Commissions across Canada, be they provincial or federal. The dangers inherent in such quasi-judicial bodies has now become only too obvious at this stage of the game. [A.T.]
————————-
B’nai Brith v. RadicalPress.com: Zionism’s Battle for Control of Canada’s Mind
by Arthur Topham
January 28, 2009
To:
Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
And
Gregory M. Smith
Registrar
Registry Officer / Agent du greffe
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal / Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4/ Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 1J4
nancy.lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca
Telephone | Téléphone 613-947-1137
Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-995-3484
Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-563-6460
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
From:
Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
January 28, 2009.
Dear Ms. Nancy Lafontant and Gregory M. Smith:
RE: Your Tribunal email letter of January 14, 2009 regarding,
Tribunal – Harry Abrams and The League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com
Your File: T1360/9008
Since receiving your email letter of January 14, 2009 I have given much serious thought and consideration to your “offer” of mediation in the complaint filed by Mr. Harry Abrams and The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada against my person and my website http://www.radicalpress.com .
Contained in this somewhat lengthy reply you will find my response. Please bear in mind that what is written is done so in a spirit of honest, frank, open-minded and loving intent; designed to address and ultimately resolve in an abbreviated synopsis, the overall issue that is presently at stake in this case. Therefore, no remarks or comments of mine, regardless of their apparent harshness or levity are intended to offend, malign or denigrate any of the parties concerned, which includes the Tribunal and its members.
With respect to the entrapment legislation (which is how I interpret Sec. 13(1) of the CHR Act), whether or not there ever existed or does exist a case of its nature, wherein mediation has benefited the “Respondent” at no cost to their principles, beliefs, integrity or rights I am unaware of it. Perhaps the recent one involving Harry Abrams and The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Al Rycroft and www.PEJ.org (one set in tandem and paralleling my own) is an exception to this general rule but, not being privy to the details of said case as to whether or not any self-censorship was involved, I cannot make any definitive statement on it one way or another. I do know though that it was initiated by the same parties who have conjoined to bring about the complaint against myself and my website and that in the case of http://www.PEJ.org it was settled in favour of the respondent but what effect that case will have or has had upon the issue of the ultimate illegality of this specious Section of the Canadian Human Rights Act remains to be seen. It is one case shrouded in almost complete secrecy since the complaint was first laid.
What I am privy to though and acutely cognizant of, is the ultimate nature of this particular complaint and its intended purpose which, I contend, has nothing to do with the issue of “Hate” or “anti-Semitism” or “Racism” or any of the other carefully crafted, misleading phrases and loaded terminology used by both the complainants and, tragically, your own departments within the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT).
Obviously this issue deals with the primary, fundamental, God-given right, as contained within Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and elsewhere, to freedom of thought and speech as well as freedom of the media to publish whatever is deemed relevant as either news or views; barring of course all which currently falls within the legal parameters of Canada’s Libel laws and those whose related purpose is to prevent acts of malicious violence toward an individual or group and/or seditious acts against the government of Canada and its sovereign citizens.
As I have previously stated, both in my original Response to the CHRC Investigating officer ( http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629 January 3, 2008 ) and in my Comments on the CHRC final Report ( see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=786 Sept 17/08 ), this is not a simple case of a person of “Jewish faith” being personally maligned or threatened or libeled. Nor is a mundane example of some benign, benevolent society within the ranks of Canada’s multi-cultural social milieu being unduly criticized or picked on for spiteful or vexatious reasons. It is much more complex and convoluted and important, relatively speaking.
It has always been the contention of RadicalPress.com and myself, well before this case arose, that the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada is today a strongly political and vociferous pro-Zionist arm of the Mossad, the designated name for Israel’s unofficial spy network. As such its direct and full complicity with the state of Israel in their covert operations abroad and in its capacity as one of Israel’s most powerful lobby groups here in Canada, makes it de facto, an organization whose operations, both within Canada and without, are justifiably suspect and deserving of the most extreme scrutiny by the media, alternative or otherwise. I needn’t at this point go into any great detail surrounding the influence of this political lobbyist group here in Canada and its subsequent negative effect upon successive federal governments as per Canada’s role in supporting the racist, apartheid policies of the state of Israel.
As well, unlike the chain of litigations linked to former CHRC lawyer and investigator Richard Warman do to his seemingly endless quest to rid Canada of “Hate”, in whatever form it may manifest for him, this particular case involving Harry Abrams and The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada is specifically designed to censor and/or destroy a legally-registered, well-established publishing business known as The Radical Press – a privately-owned entity which has been operating steadily since June of 1998 and now remains one of the very last, if not the last, alternative news sites in Canada. My guess would be that Harry Abrams, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the other Jewish lobby groups in Canada have the RadicalPress.com site posted high upon their “anti-Zionist endangered species” hit list.
The reasons why the The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada would set out to do such a thing are obvious to any impartial observer aware of the basic tenets underlying the political ideology known as Zionism. The ultimate intent of Zionism, for those unaware of it (and I must include your two departments in this assessment as well), is to subvert all sovereign governments around the world, be they democratic, socialist, fascist or communist and to draw their respective leaders into Zionism’s gigantic web of deceit; one which always tends to benefit the state of Israel. As such, its objectives pose a clear and present danger to the democratic foundation upon which Canada’s government and its social and cultural infrastructure are based.
It was for these reasons that I took it upon myself, as a dedicated, concerned, patriotic and responsible citizen of Canada to expose the disingenuous machinations of this subversive agency; one that attempts to impose itself falsely upon Canadian society as merely a “benevolent” society with little more than a pious intent to assist its membership. In actual fact it is a critical component of a foreign spy network working within that context as a double agent for the state of Israel. As such it should be registered in Ottawa as a foreign lobby group rather than feigning a false “Canadian” face to hide its true countenance and purpose. I say this because any Canadian, who holds their allegiance to Canada first and foremost, would not have the temerity, to accuse their fellow Canadians of spreading “hatred toward citizens of Israel” in the event of any critical commentary aimed at that foreign country.
Nothing more strikingly hideous and shameful for Canada could have occurred to highlight this conviction of mine than the recent slaughter and maiming of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the Palestinian region of Gaza by the Israeli government’s military forces. Canada’s response to this immoral and illegal act of sadistic aggression against a defenseless, beleaguered people was cruelly and graphically revealed in the decision by the Harper Conservative government to give Canada’s full and unqualified support to Israel in its inhumane and unacceptable destruction of Gaza’s people and its infrastructure as clearly shown by the vote in the U.N. regarding an urgent plea for a ceasefire. Canada, ONLY Canada, to the utmost humiliation of its once good name and its moral standing in the world, rather than standing up for Truth and Justice and Freedom and the democratic ideals it professes to believe in, instead prostrated itself before the warlike foreign nation of Israel like some dumb and terrified servant. As a Canadian who fervently believes in his country and its global impression upon the rest of the world; one shown by example, I found this overt act of abject obeisance to the Israeli state to be one of the most disgusting events ever witnessed in my 62 years on this planet.
In terms of my original contention therefore, it is but one more vivid example of how political organizations such as The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and the Simon Weisenthal Center (SWC) and other Jewish lobby groups conspire (yes, sadly for some, it is a conspiracy of the highest order and not a mere theory) to use their powerful lobbying positions to influence the moral and legal decisions of Canada’s duly elected representatives so that subsequent actions which reflect upon the whole of Canada’s reputation as a peace-loving nation are subverted to the degrading partisan purposes of an alien, foreign nation; one now recognized by numbers of nations as being highly racist, apartheid, undemocratic and an imminent threat to global peace.
For emphasis once again I will reiterate the fact that this is why Harry Abrams, acting as B.C.’s “agent” for the Mossad-controlled League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada has been given the job of destroying RadicalPress.com. It is so that news and opinions contained on my website which focus upon and expose this precise issue of the dangers of Zionism to Canadian sovereignty are censored from the eyes of Canadians or anyone else outside of Canada having access to the internet.
I would also submit (once again, and as stated in my Response and Comments see above), that such was the original intent by these and other Jewish lobby groups here in Canada, when they set about creating Canada’s Human Rights Commissions which ultimately gave birth to the odious Sec. 13(1) of the CHR Act.
After the dreadful murder of three thousand American and some Canadian and other foreign citizens in the attack upon the World Trade Center September 11, 2001 evidence quickly began emerging which linked the activities of the Mossad to the event thus incriminating Israel in what now is generally accepted as being the first major false flag event of the 21st Century. In order to, but not limited as such, prevent further evidence from gaining currency around the world, Canada, within three months, quickly drew up its Anti-terrorism Act, 2001, c.41, amending the Criminal Code ostensibly to “combat terrorism”. Such, I suggest, was not the only intent of said legislation. In retrospect it also proved to be the precise window required by these anti-democratic, anti-free speech agents of Israel to sneak in, as per their usual subterfuge, Sec. 13(1) into the CHR Act.
Having observed, measured and covered for the past 11 years, covert activities of various nations in greater detail than the average Canadian, it is obvious to me that such a vile, specious piece of legislation, ONLY benefits the pro-Israel and pro-Zionist Jews, their Lobby, their controlled, monopoly Media and their assorted crypto-aspirants and by association identifies all of these entities with the pro-racist and pro-apartheid policies of the Israeli government. It certainly hasn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, benefitted any of the other numerous cases of non-Jews who have already been convicted under this draconian piece of legislation.
These preliminary remarks said I would now like to touch upon some other relevant Sec. 13(1) cases and related initiatives pertinent to my case before concluding this letter.
Paramount throughout the struggle to have Sec. 13(1) erased forever from the statute books of Canada has been the long and tireless effort by Mr. Marc Lemire and his lawyer Barbara Kulaszka. On November 25, 2005, they filed a constitutional challenge against Sec. 13 (see constitutional challenge of Section 13 internet censorship) http://www.stopsection13.com and Section 54 (one imposing hefty fines) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That legal challenge dragged on in the courts until September 15-17, 2008 until final submissions were heard at a three day hearing (see: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Closing_submissions_constitutional-part_1.html ). A decision by the court is still pending as I write.
The case of the Jewish lawyer and former publisher of the now-defunct Western Standard magazine out of Alberta, Ezra Levant, was another example wherein the Alberta Human Rights Commission had laid charges of illegal “discrimination” against Levant based upon a complaint by the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities; one related to Levant’s publication in 2006 of the infamous Danish cartoons which were designed to denigrate the Muslim prophet Mohammed. That complaint finally concluded August 6th, 2008 with an acquittal. Levant afterwards, in a column in the National Post, told readers that, unlike the other case of Reverend Stephen Boissoin, another victim of the AHRC who was fined $7,000 and banned for life from giving sermons or even sending private e-mails that were “disparaging” toward homosexuals, Levant’s case was dropped in his favour due to his contention that he had been, “a political pain in the neck for the HRC.” That statement, I suggest, is both false and misleading and I maintain that the real reason why Levant was acquitted was because of the fact that he is Jewish and a supporter of the Zionist ideology.
Another example of my premise that only Jews escape the censor’s noose in Canada came soon after Mr. Lemire’s courageous constitutional challenge to Sec. 13. This one involved a provincial version of hate speech law stemming from B.C. and concerned Canadian journalist Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine. It concluded on October 10, 2008 with the decision that Steyn and Maclean’s had not violated B.C.’s hate speech law. Again, the point to bear in mind here is that Steyn’s case was not brought on by any of the Jewish lobby groups mentioned above but by the Canadian Islamic Congress. And, as in the case of Ezra Levant, Steyn, also being a Jew as well as a zealous, self-admitted Zionist, escaped the usual fate of non-Jewish respondents.
Next came the federal Conservative party’s policy convention in Winnipeg in November of 2008 at which time an overwhelming majority of delegates voted in favour of a resolution (P-203) to repeal Section 13 (Internet censorship provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Even Canada’s Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson voted in favor of P-203. Of course the media were quick to point out that such resolutions are not binding upon the Prime Minister and so thus far, for all the rhetoric and hype in the Zionist media and the right/left blogosphere, no definite actions have been taken to fulfill the aspirations of this majority of delegates. This of course is not meant as a slight upon the obviously sincere delegates themselves but only highlights the fact that in party politics it is the leaders and not the membership who ultimately make the final decisions.
In the immediate wake of Resolution P-203 came once again the renewed efforts of Liberal MP Keith Martin of B.C. (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) who had initially put forth a resolution in Parliament calling for the removal of Sec. 13 from the CHR Act back in March of 2008. On November 19, 2008 Dr. Martin introduced two new motions, M-153 and M-156. The first, M-153 states: “That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.” In the second, M-156, the motion states, “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should hold public hearings as part of a review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its tribunal.”
To date, to my knowledge, no concrete action has been forthcoming with respect to these two motions.
There are other examples, too many to include here. According to Catholic Insight magazine http://catholicinsight.com/ “On June 17, 2008, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) launched its own policy review of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Section 13 (added to the Act in 2001) gives the commission the power to investigate and punish instances of “hate speech” on the internet. The 59-page review, conducted by Prof. Richard Moon, an expert on constitutional law and free speech at the University of Windsor, was made public at a cost of over $1,000 a page on November 24, 2008 and is posted on the CHRC website.” See http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca
Surprisingly, to free speech advocates as well as to the CHRC, Prof. Richard Moon recommended “That Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act be repealed so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) no longer deal with hate speech, especially hate speech on the internet.” The immediate reaction of the CHRC was to go into a state of denial and thus far we have not seen any significant movement on this recommendation.
Catholic Insight, a magazine out of Ontario, Canada, also a victim of charges of discrimination brought on by a peculiar species of complainant known as “homo-harasimus“, also gives us additional examples of similar harassment by the CHRC. As Catholic Insight states, “The list of those who have unjustifiably suffered under Canada’s human rights system – which Justice Minister Nicholson has described in a letter to C.I. as ’second to none’ – is a long and varied one: B.C. teacher Chris Kempling; the Knights of Columbus in B.C.; Calgary Bishop Fred Henry; Alberta Pastor Stephen Boissoin; Saskatchewan’s Hugh Owens and marriage commissioner Orville Nichols; Ezra Levant in Calgary; the Christian Horizons ministry to the disabled in Ontario; Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine in Toronto; the mayors of a dozen Canadian cities who have been forced to proclaim “gay pride” days; the FreeDominion.ca website, and more.”
You can include me and RadicalPress.com in the “more” category, one which is reserved for the “more” dangerous, threatening offenders such as Malcolm Ross, Terry Long, Doug Collins, the notorious non-neo-Nazi Paul Fromm and of course Canada’s ultimate shame – Ernst Zundel – a man who now rots away in a German prison cell thanks to the egregious machinations of the CHRC and Canada’s Zionist-controlled federal Judiciary.
To conclude:
One would think that after all that has occurred over the last few years regarding these Bolshevik “Show Trials” disguised as Human Rights Tribunal hearings, that all of this would be self-evident to any intelligent person who was in a position to judge the merits of such cases. But unfortunately, logic, reason, intelligence and unbiased, objective thinking, coupled (as in my particular case), with a basic knowledge of the nature of political Zionism, do not appear to be qualities evident either within the CHRC or the CHRT. Otherwise this case would never have progressed to the stage that it now has. Instead of reason and common sense prevailing these two organizations, who have legitimately earned the ignominy of the majority of freedom-loving Canadians, continue to plod incessantly onward toward their ultimate demise seemingly oblivious to the realities that surround their robotic, immoral and unjust movements, all the while crushing more and more innocent people and organizations beneath their blundering, censorship bound Juggernaut.
And so, all that said, this brings me back to my reasons for the decision that I have made with respect to your request for a “yes or no” regarding mediation with the complainants in my case. Bluntly put, (for there really is no other simple way of stating it) there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell that Harry Abrams or The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada would agree to any form of mediation that didn’t require RadicalPress.com agreeing to remove all its controversial articles deemed “hateful” toward “Jews or citizens of Israel”. That is not the mandate given Mr. Abrams by the Mossad and as such it precludes any real chance of holding reasonable discussions on the matter. But even if this were the case, at this stage of the game of censorship I have long concluded that to consent in any way or fashion to the imperious demands and whims of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada would be demeaning to myself as a patriotic Canadian and a man of integrity and a total betrayal of every principle that I’ve held dear for the vast portion of my adult life.
And so as I stated initially I did give a lot of careful consideration to my decision. I have also been given advice by others who are themselves involved in this same battle with the CHRC over Sec. 13(1) suggesting to me that should I agree to such a process, if for no other reason, it might prove advantageous in the final outcome by possibly lessening any sentencing or subsequent fine that might be imposed (just to add injury to insult). I deliberated over that possibility but concluded that morally, reasonably and spiritually it would not be a legitimate reason to subject myself to a process that must inevitably, due to its inherent internal flaws, prove futile.
Besides that it would mean agreeing to having to travel from my home up in central British Columbia, a distance of approximately 600 + km, during the winter, to attend a one-day mediation session that is predestined to fail from the start. For Harry Abrams it’s a short trip across the strait from Victoria, B.C. and back, albeit with ferry costs, to attend the meeting and for the Tribunal member from your offices a nice, likely first class flight from Ottawa to Vancouver with all expenses paid and replete with a fancy hotel room in the West End and likely some gourmet dining and night life activity in between, all paid for by me and the rest of Canada’s taxpaying public. A tough job indeed for you I know but hey, someone has to do it I suppose for the sake of the freedom and liberty of special interest groups here in Canada determined to duct-tape the mouths of its citizens into silence and submission to Israeli interests.
I am 62 years of age. I run a seasonal business doing carpentry that ends abruptly come freeze up in the fall and doesn’t begin again until well into May when the snows recedes. In other words for about 6 months of the year I must survive on the profits of about 5 months steady employment and then for the remainder of the winter survive on a $300/month early pension payment. It hardly leaves vast extraneous sums of cash for long distance travel, hotels, meals and possible mechanical failures, let alone the hiring of any legal help. But then you are likely already well aware of this fact so I suppose I’m merely repeating myself here.
So no, I’m going to have to decline your offer of going to Vancouver even though the escape from a frozen landscape for a day or two of temperate rainforest climate would otherwise be a welcome change from the ice and snow and wood splitting.
Furthermore, had I agreed to mediation it would have been on the condition that your Tribunal member and Harry Abrams both make the trek up to the supposed “scene of the crime” and that you hold your mediation and/or your hearing in Quesnel, B.C., a location both the closest and most convenient location for me. Never forget for a moment please that it was the complainant Harry Abrams and The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada who instigated these spurious charges to begin with. That, in my mind, makes him and his organization responsible for coming to where they believe the supposed “hate crime” was committed and face, like decent men, their accused.
Surely you ought to be able to see the soundness of my proposal. Had the mediation occurred your Tribunal member would then have had to assume the additional burden of taking a small twin-engine jet service up to Quesnel and settle for a one to three day stay in one of our local hotels or motels; facilities which offer the weary traveler their own small but earnest effort at duplicating the finest of accommodations that Vancouver has to offer. I would also have suggested some good warm woolies and a toque and warm mittens for your member. Even fleece is acceptable in this sometimes rough and tumble area of the province inhabited mostly by red-neck ranchers, loggers, miners and other assorted misfits and outlaws`. You might also have had to let the member know that weather conditions could delay their flight in and out and that he or she should allow for a few days extra time in either arriving or leaving.
So you see that in fact there is a silver lining to it all. By not agreeing to mediation I will be saving Canadian taxpayers the additional expense of flying one of your members out to B.C. As well, it will save the complainant any added costs in traveling from Victoria to Vancouver and back.
As a final kick at the cat and as a parting tribute to Canada’s foremost political prisoner Ernst Zundel, I would like to share with you a short, yet poignant anecdote, one which relates to my own case and the decision I have made respecting the proposed mediation.
During the Moscow Show trials of Lenin and Stalin (which I’m sure you are all well versed in) and also during the trials of post-war Germans at Nuremberg, a prosecutorial ploy was invariably used to silence all debate and discussion that might include actual facts and verifiable proofs or truths that might have vindicated the testimony of the victims. It became know as the principle of “Manifest Obviousness” and came in very handy during the show trials of German soldiers and civilians held responsible for alleged “war crimes” and the alleged “holocaust” of the “6 million” Jews during the war. Whenever any counter evidence arose that in any way challenged the newly-coined allegations of “holocaust” and “gas chambers” and “war crimes” the judge would resort to using the expression “Manifest Obviousness” as the final counter to any argument that the court was unable to justify with verifiable evidence. In many ways it resembles the current ploy of the CHRC and its Investigators and Tribunal with their use of the term, “Hallmarks of Hate” to lend official, legal credence to an unproven set of assumptions that possess no foundation in the real world. Therefore, in the spirit of Nuremberg I would have to state that it is manifestly obvious that all of your efforts to impose legal sanctions against Canadians based upon Section 13(1) of the CHR Act are unjustifiable and venal in the worse possible sense of the term. This therefore leaves no doubt in my mind that both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal should be immediately relieved of any and all power to adjudicate any matter of Canadian jurisprudence whatsoever. I say this as a concerned Canadian, a Christian and a man of principle.
Let us therefore drop the pretension of justice and proceed to the next stage of this mock trial of a free and independent Canadian. On with the show! Let the Tribunal hearing begin! (But again, please bear in mind that I would expect you to hold it in Quesnel, B.C.)
Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
Shine your Light for Love & Peace & Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
radical@radicalpress.com
http://www.radicalpress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=893
