CLEAR YOUR EARS
The Constitution of Canada incorporating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2 of the Charter grants to everyone freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media formats. However, Section 1 restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Censorship in Canada is a bit out of whack through the appeals to the judiciary who holds that community standards and the public interest are the ultimate determinants of which forms of expression may legally be published, broadcast, or otherwise publicly disseminated. Over the 20th century, legal standards for censorship in Canada shifted from a “strong state-centered practice”, intended to protect the community from perceived social degradation, to a more decentralized form of censorship often instigated by societal groups invoking state support to restrict the public expression of their political and ideological opponents. Canada is now believed to have more hate crime legislation than any other country in the world.
Beside the Judiciary, other public organisations with the authority to censor include the Canadian Human Rights Commission, various provincial human rights commissions, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, along with self-policing associations of private corporations such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
Many thorny issues surround ‘disguised community standards’ purporting to be the local norms bounding acceptable conduct. Sometimes groups claim their standards as being the community’s values and demand their guidelines be recognized as legal necessity for your participation in the community. Often, such standards are invoked in legal situations to resolve disputes, especially around LGBTQ rights and pornography. Critics argue that puritanical moralists have used community standards to wrongly punish minorities such as homosexuals or those in interracial marriages, but the factor usually avoided in such matters surrounds who’s basis of morality is being employed.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with “goodness” or “rightness.” But, what could possibly be construed as having any moral basis if it violates the moral codes of God. Such violation certainly is not definable as in the public interest, which according to the Random House Dictionary, requires the welfare or well-being of the general public be stated through an article or action as being in public interest through appeal or relevance to the general populace. It is the same for any news story or media format to serve the public interest it must be for the good of the general populace and not special interest groups.
Of Ever Increasing Concern Is Internet Content
It is certainly in the Canadian Interest that controls be legally exercised over what is permissible to be transmitted over the Internet. Currently, most Internet Content is not specifically regulated in Canada; however, some laws apply to websites hosted in Canada as well as to residents who host sites on servers in other jurisdictions. Section 320 of the Code allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.
Publicly inciting hatred remains a key issue in hate/bias crimes and the landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of the law surrounding publicly inciting hatred was R. v. Keegstra (1990). But, the Supreme Court of Canada, by a bare 4-3 plurality, upheld the constitutionality of section 319 in R. v. Keegstra  3 S.C.R. 697.
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is the highest court of Canada, and the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The SCC grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the notwithstanding clause. You had better pay close attention to the “notwithstanding clause” and its use through the judicial sector from this point onward in time.
In the case of Canada The Human Rights Commission v. Taylor,  3 S.C.R. 892 at 902, the Supreme Court said hate propaganda denotes any expression that is “intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group”. A well-known example is the case of Ernst Zündel, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for promoting ethnic hatred via his website. In Citron v. Zündel TD 1/02 (2002/01/18) the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that the respondent had theories of secret conspiracies by Jews. The respondent posted his theories to the Internet. The Tribunal found that the tone and extreme denigration and vilification of Jews by the respondent was a violation of s. 13(1). The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices.
But, in 2003 in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew under the Criminal Code with wilfully inciting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. In 2005, the Provincial Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000. In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal. On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew’s remarks were “revolting, disgusting, and untrue,” but they did not constitute “promoting hatred.”
What were the differences between Zundel’s and Ahenakew’s remarks? If you read the links you see they both spoke and displayed many of the same beliefs. Ahenakew’s remarks were “revolting, disgusting, and untrue,” but they did not constitute “promoting hatred.” So why did only Zundel’s promote hatred? Both men were culturally sick hate propagandists. One was German White and the other Canadian Brown. Both were playing on the same team and short a few ‘sane similar sound tracks’. It appears that Judge Tucker either executed politically expedient means to defuse the bubbling racial issues or his own personal bias toward appeasement of native Canadian elements rose to the fore. But who truly cares, eh?
You had better care for the results in our midst of not caring are the rents in our society fabric, the largest of which surrounds Native Canadian ‘Indian Affairs’. And the most destructive agent in our society enlarging every tear in the fabric is that of Islam. You can largely blame Trudeau and his Rabid Islamic Crew that Blood Shall Flow In Canada as posted on February 11, 2018. Bind the wounds of the nation by removing of all such persons as Carolyn Bennett from the Canadian public landscape.
It is a righteous action with God that this take place.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15
Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?