HATE CRIME SERIES – 6

PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION?

Over 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.

HATE PROPAGANDA

Once again from our Toronto Police 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 defence 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 wilful 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;

“genocide”

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 ;

“judge”

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.]

A MIX of DEFINITIONS with ETHNIC and TECHNICAL LANGUAGE BASES can further compound the issues surrounding EQUAL application of Canadian Law from Coast to Coast. This has shown itself in the appointment of the new Governor General of Canada with the baggage of her personal prejudices and nuances attached.

Julie Payette with her ‘scientific wisdom has all the foolishness of her buddy Justin Trudeau emanating from the common beaker of their brains. These are truly Godless spiritually odious people and thus a reminder of 1Timothy 6:20-21: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

The profane and vain babblings of this pair are further defining the DESTRUCTION of THE NATION OF CANADA through their Islamic and gender bent lunacy. It is thus Justin Trudeau’s Crew continues to ensure that Blood Shall Flow In Canada as posted on February 11, 2018   And, it is all Trudeau’s rotted political appointments that should be totally rescinded with such societal vermin crawling back under the rocks from whence they came.

It is a righteous action with God that this take place.

Phinehas

Galatians 4:16    Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

 

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.