hc1The terms surrounding hate crimes are widely bantered about and most people have little or no true understanding of the term hate crime itself, or how it is being used to manipulate them by societal groups bent upon their own transformer agendas for one and all. There is a lot of fear mongering by groups and individuals using claims of hate crime and those made most easily fearful are truly the most ignorant among us. They are afraid of the label of hate crimes being associated with them in any manner, and this works to the advantage of minority and cultural groups that will ultimately make all morally sound Canadian communal values extant if allowed to continue.

Further, trying to tie statistics into gaining a current reality of hate crimes is an issue in itself, for statistics are a collective of documented filings that are at best a year behind the reality of present events.  In an updated report of August of 2012 it was stated Hate crimes on the rise in Canada – The Globe and Mail You can jump from this to the Stats Can – Police Reported Hate Crime in Canada, 2013 for a view one year newer.   But the most recent and reliable statistical report I could find is the Toronto Police Service 2015 Annual Hate/Bias Crime Statistical Report by the Intelligence Services, Hate Crime Unit.  2015 Annual Hate Bias Crime Statistical Report It will be statistical data from this report that I shall largely be referencing. Clarifying definitions is very important in our area of investigations now underway. In the swirl of terminology around hate crime remember the term hate bias crime is most closely associated with it.

The following from Wikipedia shall get you started.  “A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime, which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group. Examples of such groups can include but are not limited to: sexethnicitydisabilitylanguagenationalityphysical appearance, religiongender identity or sexual orientation. Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called “bias incidents“. ‘Hate crime’ generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullyingharassmentverbal abuse or insults, mate crime or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).”     Hate crime – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

hc2Definition of Hate Crime

Hate crime is any of a variety of crimes such as assault or defacement of property, which are motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group based upon their perceived color, ethnicity, religious creed, disability, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. While it is also called bias crime there are a wide variety of actions that may entail such emotional-mental states as hostility, animosity, antagonism, discrimination, enmity, hatred or prejudice triggering both definitions. Hatred is but one state of being that many variant emotional causes of crime are currently being lumped behind. As such, the common Legal Definition of hate crime as being:  a crime that violates the victim’s civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim’s race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender: actually clouds the issue. Why? Because hatred or hate is a much stronger emotional trigger than are the others listed. You cannot categorize hatred and hostility as the same thing. Thus, to categorize hate crime as hate bias crime is a borderline definition at best, but to call a hate crime a bias crime is absurdity. Take the following definitions into consideration.

Hate can be defined as “to dislike, loathe, detest, despise, abhor intensely or passionately; with feelings of extreme aversion or ill will toward the person, persons or their actions that they engender; emotion is to such degree that they desire their debasement, punishment and elimination as a source of perceived evil altogether. Now, the first problem that exists here is clearly establishing the base that the person expressing the hatred may be functioning from. We shall deal with this later, but one and all should be able to accept that premeditated murder is clearly a hate crime.

Bias is defined as actions of partiality, partisanship, favoritism, or prejudice in favor of or against one thing, or a person, or a group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair; and such actions usually results in treatment of some people unfairly. Bias normally contains unreasonable preconceived ideas, inclinations, feelings, opinions and tendencies to believe that some ideas or people are simply better than others.  One can have strong bias in favor of an idea, even unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; be prejudiced simply on the basis of racial or sexual bias, but they will never be triggered to the violence that hatred evokes.

So what we have facing us is hate crime, variant forms of anti-social bias activity and bias activity that has been defined and constituted as bias activity crime.  It is bias activity crime that has wandered into the arena of violence against persons at times due to temporary emotional stimulation, whether that stimulation be due to stupidity or chemical inducements. But that stimulation is not the stimulation of hatred that underlies the actions such as that of premeditated murder.


 hc3There Is No True Uniformity

There are a fairly wide body of laws being brought to bear on hate crime, bias activity and bias activity crime in Canada. Unfortunately, the enforcement of these laws and the administration of justice through them is hampered in many legal jurisdictions because there are no clear cut definitions applicable to all levels of policing authority from coast to coast. This makes it difficult in many jurisdictions to have law enforcement investigate complaints, lay charges and even harder to have perpetrators prosecuted, despite what various provincial, territorial and federal government agencies may boast to the contrary. This is clearly evidenced in the following Federal Government Reports  Disproportionate Harm: Hate Crime in Canada – Justice                 FINDINGS – Disproportionate Harm: Hate Crime in Canada

 Hate crime laws generally fall into these categories: (1) Laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes; (2) Criminal penalty-enhancement laws; (3) Laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and (4) Laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.

“Every occurrence is classified using the following hate/bias categories contained within the hate/bias crime definition of the Criminal Code of Canada:  race, national or ethnic origin, age, language, sex, disability, sexual orientation, religion, color or any other similar factor.

Comments and/or actions of a suspect during an incident can be significant in determining the suspect’s motive and bias; however, it is sometimes difficult to classify an occurrence with complete accuracy.  Additional criteria used to assist in classifying occurrences include:  the victim’s perception of the incident, culturally significant dates, symbols, history of the community and current world events.

Sometimes the suspect misperceives the victim’s background.  This may occur in some incidents involving visible minorities, where the suspect can be completely unaware of the victim’s actual background and wrongly assumes that the victim belongs to a particular group.  Due to this fact, the victim becomes a target based on the suspect’s misperception.

While it is recognized that every individual has multiple aspects to their identity, more than one of which could be cause for an offender to target them, it is the practice to classify a hate/bias occurrence based on the best known information that exists relevant to the offender’s perception of the victim.”

Victims may be reluctant to report hate/bias crimes for such reasons as: (1) The victim may not recognize that the crime was motivated by bias or hate. (2) There may be fear of retaliation. (3) There may be uncertainty or lack of trust in the criminal justice system’s response. (4) The victim may fear his/her sexual orientation may be exposed to family members, employers or the general public. (5) Many fear embarrassment, humiliation and the stigma that often occasions from being victimized.


hc4The Criminal Code of Canada – Hate Crime Laws 

In Canada the legal definition of hate crime can be found based in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada. All types of hate/bias motivated crimes are those forms of expression that (1) fit within the parameters of genocide/hate propaganda in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code; and (2) All other criminal offences where there is evidence to indicate bias, prejudice or hate was a motivating factor in the commission of the offences.

Thus, the Criminal Code of Canada defines hate/bias crime as “A criminal offence committed against a person or property, where there is evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, based on the victim’s race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor”.

Now, here in its entirety is Section 318 Read and heed.    

Advocating Genocide… / Definition of “hate propaganda” / Consent / Definition of “identifiable group”.

  1. (1)Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. [R.S. c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.]

And here in its entirety is Section 319 Read and heed.    

Public Incitement of Hatred… / Wilful promotion of hatred / Defences / Forfeiture / Exemption from seizure of communication facilities / Consent / Definitions / “communicating” / “identifiable group” / “public place” / “statements”.

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

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and 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.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(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.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such convictions, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) In this section,


includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

“identifiable group”

has the same meaning as in section 318 ;

“public place”

includes any place to which the public have access as a right or by invitation, express or implied;


includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electromagnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. [R.S., c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.]

Note: Although at some of this section infringes the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , it has been ruled that it constitutes a reasonable limit on that right and is therefore valid legislation: R. v. Keegstra (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 110, [1991] 4 W.W.R. 136, 79 Alta. L.R. (2d) 97 (C.A.).

And you should pay attention to this particular amendment. In 1996 the federal government amended a section of the Criminal Code that pertains to Sentencing. Specifically, section 718.2. The section states with regard to the hate crime:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.”

 hc5Religion, sexual orientation and race have been the predominant motivation factors for hate/bias crimes over the past ten years. In 2015, the most prevalent hate/bias occurrences were for the offences of mischief to property, assault and criminal harassment.  Assault and criminal harassment occurrences were considered as being actions that were unprovoked by the victims.  As in past years, these kinds of offences occurred in a variety of different locations such as dwellings, public park/streets, schools and public transportation.  But the matter of Accused / Suspect Identification remains problematic.

Accused/suspect information is typically provided by victims, witnesses, audio/video security cameras and forensic evidence.  Forensic Identification Unit plays a significant role in collecting physical evidence such as DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes.  Service Procedures normally requires all police officers investigating a hate/bias crime to protect the scene and secure all relevant evidence including items such as posters, graffiti, recordings and clothing for forensic examination.  Furthermore, officers are required to photograph the scene where or when evidence cannot be readily detached or retrieved.

It is often very difficult to identify suspects, as many hate/bias crimes occur without any witnesses’ present.  Moreover, many hate/bias crimes occur without the victim present, as in the case of hate motivated graffiti or mischief.

hc6General Hate/Bias Categories 

To ensure clarification of definition consider the following.

Offences in the race category include people targeted because of an obvious visible difference, often the colour of their skin, or other physical characteristics relating to race.

Hate/bias motivated occurrences are coded as ethnicity to denote offences where the victims share a common cultural or national tradition or refer to victims by their birth origin rather than their present nationality.

The nationality category is used when a victim is targeted specifically because of his or her perceived nationality.

The sex category is used when a victim is targeted because of the gender that they are perceived to belong to (male, female, Trans or Transgender). Trans or Transgender is an umbrella term referring to people with diverse gender identities and expressions that differ from stereotypical gender norms. It includes but is not limited to people who identify as Transgender, Trans woman (male-to-female), Trans man (female-to-male), Transsexual, cross-dresser, gender nonconforming, gender variant or gender queer.

The categories of age, language, disability, sexual orientation and religion are typically clear in terms of why the victims have been targeted and therefore are often more easily categorized.   However, in similar factor occurrences, hatred can focus on members of a group who have significant points in common and share a trait that is often integral to the dignity of the person.  The shared trait is common to a group not just an individual.  Examples of any other similar factors include but are not limited to members of a particular profession (i.e. priests), ancestry and citizenship.

Hate groups are commonly loose affiliations or informal gatherings of like-minded individuals. These gatherings are more common to the internet than to actual physical arenas. Social media, blogs, forums, web sites and other forms of internet-based contact remain popular as modes for recruitment, expression, information and communication.

Multi-bias crimes are occurrences where more than one of the identifiable groups has been targeted.  This occurs when a suspect’s comments and/or actions are directed towards several victim groups.  For example, a hate propaganda flyer that targets Muslims, Canadians and First Nations members will be categorized as multi-bias.

We shall now proceed with further laws and enactments needing consideration in looking at the 2015 Winners of the Top Three Victim’s Categories.


In 2015, the Jewish community, followed by the LGBTQ community and the Muslim community were the most victimized groups.  And, the three most reported criminal offences motivated by hate/bias in 2015 were mischief to property, assault and criminal harassment.

hc7Our Jewish Community:  The Jewish community was the most victimized group for mischief to property occurrences.  Vandalism and graffiti were the two primary forms of mischief to property perpetrated by the offenders.

In 2001, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a new provision was added to the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 430(4.1), which allow the courts to impose more severe penalties for the criminal offence of mischief to religious property.  Section 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code states:

“Everyone who commits mischief in relation to property that is a building, structure or part thereof that is primarily used for religious worship, including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple, or an object associated with religious worship located in or on the grounds of such a building or structure, or a cemetery, if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.”

There appears to be no specific charge for the destruction or desecration of a place of worship other than section 430 which makes it an offense to willfully destroy, damage or interfere with the use of property. However, other sections of the Criminal Code can entail a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if there is danger to life. Whether s 430(4.1) applies, or should apply, to virtual places of worship is a matter of debate.

hc8LGBTQ Community:   The LGBTQ community was the most victimized group for assault occurrences.

Section 265 defines assault as “the use or attempted use of force against another person without consent, or either the plausible threat of force or the display of a plausible facsimile of a weapon.” It is not necessary to prove physical contact to prove a charge of assault. This opens wide the doorway for verbal assault and the maximum penalty for assault is stated as five years.

Torture is considered an extreme and heinous form of physical and/or mental assault. Section 269.1 makes it an offense for any person acting under the authority of a public official to torture anyone. Torture is defined as intentionally inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering, for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, punishing or extracting information from the victim or third person. The maximum penalty is 14 years.

hc9Muslims: “The Muslim community was the most victimized group for criminal harassment occurrences in 2015.  The regional instability in the Middle East has resulted in the displacement of nearly four million Syrian refugees.  In response, the Canadian government committed to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees by January 1, 2016.  In 2015, the Service has noted an increase in hate/bias crime targeting the Muslim community, specifically during the month of November.  This trend may be attributed to negative backlash following the attacks in Paris, France and the government’s refugee resettlement plan.”

So, just what qualifies as criminal harassment?

Criminal Harassment

Section 264 defines criminal harassment as persistently following, communicating, watching or threatening any person or anyone known to that person when the perpetrators knows or ought to know that the other person might reasonably fear for their safety or safety of anyone known to the victim.

Section 372 prohibits communication designed to harass persons. Subsection 372. (1) prohibits the transmission of false information by any means, directly or indirectly, which is intended to injure or alarm any person. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment. Subsection (2) makes the offense eligible for the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. Subsection (3) prohibits repeated telephone calls to any person with the intent of harassing any person. It must be assumed that repeated-mail or publications of similar intent would be categorized the same. For such the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment and a $2,000 fine.


hc10Over the past few years in dealing with the evil of Islam and unrepentant homosexuality I have sent thousands of messages to individuals, groups, associations, organizations and institutions. I have also walked the same message into locations like the Vatican and remote jungle villages of Indonesia. In it all I have sought the leading of the Holy Spirit. None of what I have done can be qualified as hate speech or hate propaganda. If you think it can be than level charges and let us get into the Supreme Court of Canada where I can see to the complete elimination of Islam in this nation and termination of the homosexual agenda that continues to destroy the families of all heterosexual individuals.

Now, physical actions with specific visible results appear to be easier to judge and apply legal parameters to than do verbal actions that may be the trigger of such physical actions.  This circumstance has us facing the two general areas of hate/bias crime verbalization: (1) Hate Propaganda and (2) Hate Speech.

But a simply fact remains that verbalizations whether they be mental only within the individuals head or vocally uttered from their lips always precede physical actions. When we enter the realm of verbalization and hate/bias crime we are naturally transferred into all arenas of media communication from paper to internet. What is spoken has great import, but what is published has a far greater impact for its record is intact and lasting. This has long been recognized by the Canadian Legal System, but its ability to deal with the issues involved has been fragmented from coast to coast.

The Criminal Code of Canada is our attempt to apply a blanket law from coast to coast. An example of this in the generalized area of hate/bias crime verbalization can be seen in Uttering Threats: Section 264.1(1) where it makes it an offense to knowingly threaten (directly or indirectly) death or bodily harm. The maximum penalty is five years. The same section makes it an offense to burn, destroy or damage property or to kill or injure an animal that is the property of another person.   (For your resource reference the Main Menu: Criminal Code of Canada ) But, what is visibly evidenced are differences between the Provinces and Territories as to their abilities to enact and enforce hate/bias crime laws that are supposed to be uniform. Different provincial/territorial bodies are employing variant legal tools to try to achieve what is supposed to be a commonality of purpose in applying hate/bias crime laws equally to all citizens of Canada.

Saskatchewan had the first legislation in North America (1947) to prohibit victimisation on account of race, religion, colour, sex, nationality, ancestry, and place of origin. And it is from recent events of Saskatchewan I will ultimately focus upon that rectification of our current Canadian Legal mess shall truly commence. It shall commence or this Nation will rapidly dissolve in the foment of social-political-economic-spiritual unrest now evidenced. And, at the forefront of necessary concerns evidenced from Saskatchewan are the issues of (1) Hate Propaganda and (2) Hate Speech.


Once again from our Toronto Boys: “The internet and its various modes of communication remain a popular method for communicating hate propaganda, threats and criminal harassment, most likely due to the perpetrator’s perceived ability to remain anonymous.  Perpetrators are frequently able to remain anonymous by creating false personas and email addresses when communicating to their victims over the internet.

In 2015, five hate/bias occurrences were committed via the internet, representing approximately 4% of the total hate/bias motivated occurrences.  Based on the continuously increasing prevalence of the internet as a medium of communication, the HCU continues to closely monitor open forum websites, chat rooms, message boards, etc. and initiate investigations as required.  When possible criminality is identified, the HCU draws on other Service resources, including support from the Computer Cyber Crime and the Technological Crime Sections of Intelligence Services.”

Hate propaganda is defined as, “Any communication that advocates or promotes genocide or makes statements, other than in private, that promote hatred against an identifiable group”.  An identifiable group is defined by the Criminal Code as, “Any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation”.   The consent of the Ontario Attorney General is required for hate propaganda prosecutions.

Take particular note:  Neither section 318 or 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code specifically addresses hate on the Internet, but they both have been used to stop Canadians from posting what some special interest groups consider hate propaganda. This has been done through back doors such as the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. However, no proceeding under s. 318 or s. 319(2) of the Code can take place without the consent of the Attorney General of the province where the offence took place and such consent often proves to be very difficult to obtain. Why? Because it must be proven that the accused intentionally acted out of hatred. As well, the accused can easily defend themselves through the defense of good faith expression of opinion on a religious subject or spiritual belief when based firmly on religious text.

However, under s. 320.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which came about due to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, a judge can now order hate propaganda removed from the Internet even where the intent to advocate genocide or the willful promotion of hatred cannot be proven and regardless of whether the content provider is also prosecuted under ss. 318 / 319 or not. In other words, a judge can use the law to push forward their own particular bias and this occurrence has increased with alarming frequency in the past decade. So, pay particular heed to the Canadian Criminal Code 320. Warrant of Seizure published intact.

  1. WARRANT OF SEIZURE … / Summons to occupier / Owner and author may appear / Order of forfeiture / Disposal of matter/ Appeal / Consent / Definitions / “court” / “genocide” / “hate propaganda” / “judge”..
  2. (1)A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises, within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda, shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.

(2) Within seven days of the issue of the warrant under subsection (1), the judge shall issue a summons to the occupier of the premises requiring him to appear before the court and show cause why the matter seized should not be forfeited to Her Majesty.

(3) The owner and the author of the matter seized under subsection (1) and alleged to be hate propaganda may appear and be represented in the proceedings in order to oppose the making of an order for the forfeiture of the matter.

(4) If the court is satisfied that the publication referred to in subsection (1) is hate propaganda, it shall make an order declaring the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication referred to in subsection (1) is hate propaganda, it shall order that the matter be restored to the person from whom it was seized forthwith after the time for final appeal has expired.

(6) An appeal lies from an order made . under subsection (4) or (5) by any person who appeared in the proceedings

(a) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone,

(b) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of fact alone, or

(c) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of mixed law and fact,

as if it were an appeal against conviction or against a judgement or verdict of acquittal, as the case may be, on a question of law alone under Part XXI , and sections 673 to 696 apply with such modifications as the circumstances require.

(7) No proceeding under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(8) In this section,

“court” means

(a) in the Province of Quebec, the Court of Quebec,

(a.1) in the Province of Ontario, the Ontario Court (General Division),

(b) in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Court of Queen’s Bench,

(c) in the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, the Supreme Court, Trial Division, and

(c.1) [Repealed. 1992, c.51, s.36.]

(d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court;

NOTE: Definition “court” amended 1993, c.28, s.78 (to come into force April 1, 1999) by re-enacting para. (d). the text of para. (d), which is not yet in force and therefor printed in italics, reads as follows:

(d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, the Supreme Court;


has the same meaning as in section 318 ;

“hate propaganda”

means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319 ;


means a judge of a court. [r.S., c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1; 1974-75, c.48, s.25; 1978-79, c.11, s.10; R.S.C. 1985, c.27 (2nd Supp.), s.10; c.40 (4th Supp.), s.2; 1990, c.16, s.4; 1990, c.17, s.11; 1992, c.1, s.58.]


We know from general definition that hate crime is a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. We also know that a hate crime law is a law intended to also deter bias-motivated violence. But hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in the United States where hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a specific category of speech. U.S. hate speech laws that exist are mainly in conflict with the first amendment right to freedom of speech, so they have repeatedly been overturned as unconstitutional. But, what about here in Canada?  Well, the first time someone was charged with hate speech over the internet occurred on 27 March 1996. “A Winnipeg teenager was arrested by the police for sending an email to a local political activist that contained the message ‘Death to homosexuals’ it’s prescribed in the Bible! Better watch out next Gay Pride Week.’ (Nairne, 1996).” That was over ten years ago and a lot has taken place since needing our consideration.

The Law Surrounding Hate Speech Internationally

In most countries hate speech is not considered a legal term, but it is generally considered speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of such attributes as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. In some countries however, hate speech is speech, a gesture or conduct, writing, or a display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. But like all other matters the United Nations General Assembly is trying to tell the world how it must conduct itself in relationship to hate speech and hate/bias crime.

“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966, and in force from 23 March 1976. It commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to lifefreedom of religion, freedom of speechfreedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. As of April 2014, the Covenant has 74 signatories and 168 parties.

The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (a separate body to the United Nations Human Rights Council), which reviews regular reports of States parties on how the rights are being implemented. States must report initially one year after acceding to the Covenant and then whenever the Committee requests (usually every four years). The Committee normally meets in Geneva and normally holds three sessions per year.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism. On 3 May 2011, Michael O’Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of “hate speech” do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20. Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.”

However, for many outside observers, the term “hate speech” is simply viewed as a ‘politically correct’ expression used to intimidate or silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented by politicians in a rush to appear politically correct. In modern usage, the term politically correct language, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. Special interest groups often push the idea of there being necessary ‘political correctness’ and ‘politically correct speech’ in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination; and as part of a broader advancing of their own cultural objectives. Political policies that reinforce ‘political correctness’ are usually excessively weighted in favor of the minority of concern as opposed to the rights of the majority they are supposed to be a homogeneous part of.

 A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums that emphasize a particular viewpoint. An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages. They differ from chat rooms in that messages are often longer than one line of text, and are at least temporarily archived. Also, depending on the access level of a user or the forum set-up, a posted message might need to be approved by a moderator before it becomes visible.

Some communication theories give insight into the possible harm caused by hate speech and hate sites such as, ‘racist expressions allowing minorities to be categorized with negative attributes are directly harmful to them’. What is overlooked is the fact that whether negative attributes are ascribed to a minority or a majority, racist expressions are equally as harmful. Logic would seem to dictate that the degree of harm caused is greater in amount due to the size of the group that the negative attributes are ascribed to and not vice-versa as theorists propound. Take a very human example of a person infected with a common cold. The damage of physical, emotional and mental well being that catching a cold may cause is greatly magnified among a larger societal grouping than a smaller community. One simply should not cough hate/bias into the midst of any unprotected group.

For certain, racist expressions do cause harm and hate speech is employed by racists as a mechanism of subordinating others. But the effects of such are as equally damaging whether employed by ‘niggers, honkies, religious bigots, sexists or queers’; and it appears that too frequently all such groups are employing them to achieve their own pernicious or cultural ends. This does not make the maintenance of law and order among the unrighteous herd an easy task for any law enforcement agency.

And what compounds difficulty for all, is that sometimes a very self-centered, bigoted group such as that led by the activist Soraya Chemaly can evoke an impact upon the international media community that has potential terminal media effects. Following a campaign against publishing media content that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women, Chemaly led a media assault by Women like that of the Everyday Sexism Project.  Personally I believe that digging out the roots of domestic and sexual violence is a noble goal, as did the mass of supporters for Chemaly. Such people are to be lauded for taking on ‘the big boys’ but I am not certain that all were driven by noble ideals and desire for ‘the greatest common good’.

Whatever, by May 29, 2013 Facebook had been forced to state it had “become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate.” Ultimately on May 31, 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter jointly agreed to a European Union code of conduct obligating them to review “the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech” posted on their services within 24 hours. So, we are left with a media system somewhat obligated to enact the directives of the European Political Union.  And what a disintegrating, unbalanced Political Union it is proving to be, eh? So where does this noble cause truly leave us Canadians? We are just left floating in an even deeper sewage of blah, blah, blah and necessity of determining what truly does classify as hate/bias crime that should be enforced in Canada. And, to what degree should we allow any ‘off shore agency of any kind’ to dictate our national terms of legal reference? And, just whom should we punish and in what manner if they do not comply with our currently designated laws? Yep, just more of the old blah, blah, blah when the present laws we have on the books can rectify 90% of all societal disruptive forces we face from both within and without the nation.

But, “since signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the Canadian Government has attempted to make universal human rights a part of Canadian Law. There are currently four key mechanisms in Canada to protect human rights: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and provincial human rights laws and commissions.

But generally, international hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those that are designed for public order which appear to be somewhat ineffective because they are rarely enforced. And those meant to protect human dignity, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands which seem to be frequently enforced.  From such a base let us get on with cleaning up our own frozen backyards before we pull anymore inane Trudeau tactics of self-aggrandisement claiming we are the modeling patterns for the world to follow.  It is stated most Canadians believe the country to be a strong proponent and positive model of human rights for the rest of the world. Touting for example the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act of 2005 legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. This in no manner made it morally right and reality is that the enactment was the manipulation by perverted sexual interest groups.


Canadian hate speech laws are basically covered in Criminal Code legislation sections 318, 319 and 320. But there are two generalized sectors of these laws by which individuals are punished for what variant judiciary have called ‘hate speech’. In both sectors of such designated offence an “identifiable group” is defined the same:  “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability”. As well, in both sectors there is no minimum sentence applicable to such offences.

However, advocating genocide against any “identifiable group” is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code and carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Whereas, publicly inciting hatred against any identifiable group is also an offence which can be prosecuted either as an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of two years’ prison time, or as a summary conviction offence with a maximum sentence of six months’ in jail. I thus must assume that advocating genocide is considered to be a more severe level of publicly inciting hatred. You simply cannot publicly advocate genocide without being guilty of attempting to publicly incite hatred.

So, we have three different potential terms of sentence pursuant to hate speech law. And to necessitate further judicial query we find the offence of publicly inciting hatred makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. Under Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an accused is not guilty if: (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.

And through such exceptions as the foregoing you will find all kinds of camouflaged arguments arise that prevent the ‘speedy execution of Justice that the Bible demands’ and our society needs for its long-term survival. You will find no such camouflaged arguments arise on my part and I challenge you once more to prove in the Courts of Canada if you think they do WITHIN ANYTHING I PUBLISH.


hc14 With this I am ending Part One. Perhaps you will now want to sift through some of the matters I have posted prior. It may give your head a break from all the necessary legalize-framework I must make available, precedent to showing you how under the existing legislation the Qur’an, hadith and all Islamic practices espoused must be completely banned within Canada, for the source of hate/crime bias they promote under guise Islam represents a doctrine for common communal cultural well being.

The RCMP currently have me under investigation for prosecution under hate/bias crime. They are going to be unable to level charges of any kind which I shall prove from within my own writings and the laws as now intact. However, through the examples to be given, these same RCMP Major Crime Unit Detectives are going to have to level charges against sources that have both accused me of hate/bias crime and defamed the Christian basis of my life.

I remind you that I follow the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a Christian: you can ridicule me, you can threaten me and God-willing you can possibly even kill me; but no LGBTQ or Islamic Bonehead can make me change my mind from what I know is morally right. And no Jew or Zionist wants me to change my mind about what we both know is morally wrong.  Thus, I must assume there is far less concern when I park at the local synagogue as opposed to the mosque or community sponsored queer center, eh? But, I frequent all three as the Spirit moves upon me for I know, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” (Philippians 2:10)


In Christ Eternal





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.