The judicial system is racist, and its the Jews' fault

[KrazyHorse]

I can't wait till they strip his Order of Canada.

Not because he's now a convicted criminal, but because he's an intolerable sack of ****.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm one of the leftmost Canadians around, but I'm on your side

I said THESE Canadians... I was speaking of the censorship whores .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's what I said.

But I don't believe that we should be prohibiting simple hate speech (which requires no mention of violence AFAIK)

Yes it does:

Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of...

The act has to be both public and liable to lead to violence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's what I said.

But I don't believe that we should be prohibiting simple hate speech (which requires no mention of violence AFAIK)

Oh, and fyi, the ACLU would be arguing that this dude's statement (about Hitler frying and all that) is protected under the US Constitution and is NOT an incitement to violence. And he'd win in the US. Our incitement to violence goes well beyond this... though perhaps that's a definitional issue.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I can't wait till they strip his Order of Canada.

Not because he's now a convicted criminal, but because he's an intolerable sack of ****.

Already done. The GG signed the papers from the sick bed.

He will most likely keep the pin. I doubt they will send in the sheriff to seize it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Oh, and fyi, the ACLU would be arguing that this dude's statement (about Hitler frying and all that) is protected under the US Constitution and is NOT an incitement to violence. And he'd win in the US. Our incitement to violence goes well beyond this... though perhaps that's a definitional issue.

And neither Toronto nor London is subject to your Constitution. We have our own, thank you very much.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yes it does:

Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of...

The act has to be both public and liable to lead to violence.

It has to be "liable to lead to violence", yet does not have to make any mention of violence.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Already done. The GG signed the papers from the sick bed.

He will most likely keep the pin. I doubt they will send in the sheriff to seize it.

Nice

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It has to be "liable to lead to violence", yet does not have to make any mention of violence.

Frying six million people as if they were diseased rats is not a reference to violence?

[KrazyHorse]

I just said that I believe that Ahenakew should be criminally liable for what he said

On the other hand, I believe that the law is worded in such a way that even those who do not mention violent acts are also criminally liable, which in my opinion is a mistake.

[notyoueither]

I disagree with your belief.

It quite clearly states breach of the peace.

You might pay attention to how rare these prosecutions are.

[KrazyHorse]

It reminds me of Quebec's Padlock Law, where all writings by communists were to be seized and the locations they were found in padlocked by the government.

The reasoning was based on the fact that communists incited violence against the ruling order.

The real problem lay in the fact that it was also held that publications which did not make any mention of violence could be deemed communist.

So communist writings were banned because they promoted violence, yet it was not necessary for writing to contain any mention of violence to be considered communist.

[notyoueither]

It also has to be a 'public' statement.

This twerp would even have got off after his apology, had he not repeated the slander to other reporters after that date.

[Bill3000]

Three pages of hate speech debate and no mention of Demesos?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I disagree with your belief.

It quite clearly states breach of the peace.

You might pay attention to how rare these prosecutions are.

It states that there must be a likelihood that they will lead to a breach of the peace, not that they praise or even mention breaches of the peace.

In other words, if I say that black people are violent and evil and somebody listens to me and goes out and kills black people then I will be criminally liable under this law.