PREEMPTIVELY arresting Canadians: Trudeau’s ‘anti-hate’ bill will allow people to PREEMPTIVELY report Canadians for ‘hate speech’. Bill c36 discards principals of Western common law built over 30 centuries of custom, tradition and precedence. We can trace foundational elements of Canadian common law back to Justinian law of 530 AD. Justinian law follows upon the laws of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was then modified by the Anglo Saxons in the 6th century and the Normans in the 12th century. According to the practice of common law, a person had the right to face his accuser and he could only be punished for a crime if found guilty of actually committing the crime. This no longer applies with Hate Speech Canada c36.
Those concepts are as they say “so yesterday”. This is a new Canada that is, as Justin Trudeau said, the “first post national state with no core identity or culture”. This new Canada has discarded its antiquated British Anglo Saxon culture and replaced it with a Global culture that eagerly and proudly promotes limiting speech to ensure community cohesion, harmony, respect for the sensibilities of the Muslim community and quashing any and all Islamophobic sentiments.
Muslim organizations such as NCCM have been lobbying Justin Trudeau and provincial leaders to expand hate speech laws to criminalize Islamophobia. Bill c36 gives the Muslim lobbyists more than they asked for. For the first time in the history of Western civilization, a person can be punished for the possibility that he might, at a future date, commit a crime that some, reasonable people, do not even consider a crime. Many elements of hate crimes conviction have been overturned on appeal or been upheld with a dissenting minority opinion.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act
Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime – Hate Speech Canada c36
810.012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit…
- (a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
- (b) an offence under subsection 430(4.1); or
- (c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Actus Reus is Commission of a Crime Mens Rea Determines Level of Guilt
Ottawa Muslim Immigrant Found Not Guilty of Rape due to No Mens Rea
In a written ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith said the Crown failed to prove that the accused had formed the required criminal intent — mens rea — to sexually assault his wife in 2002.
However, the judge ruled the man was not guilty of sexual assault because the Crown had failed to establish that he knew his behaviour was, in fact, criminal.
Inconsistencies in Defining Intentions – Hate Speech Canada c36
- a: what one intends to do or bring about 1) b: the object for which a prayer, mass, or pious act is offered 2) a: determination to act in a certain way : RESOLVE 3 intentions plural: purpose with respect to marriage
It is a widely (was a) known fact that for a criminal offense to be established, actus reus and mens rea ought to be established. Actus reus is easy to establish because it is as simple as evaluating whether the physical criminal act was evident or not. However, mens rea determines the mental aspect of crimes, and it may not be easily determined by a court of law. In as much as the distinction between the physical and mental aspects of crime is the most common difference between actus reus and mens rea, the most important question is what is intention? And how is it defined? These questions compound the dilemma associated with defining mens rea.
Actus reus and mens rea must both be determined to be present before a defendant is prosecuted according to the principle of fair justice. This study, however, notes that it is much more difficult to establish mens rea since actus reus is a physical activity and can easily be established by the apparent facts. This study shows that mens rea is difficult to establish because there is no common ground for determining intention.
(8) The Commission may deal with a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 without disclosing to the person against whom the complaint was filed or to any other person, the identity of the alleged victim, the individual or group of individuals who has filed the complaint or any individual who has given evidence or assisted the Commission in any way in dealing with the complaint, if the Commission considers that there is a real and substantial risk that any of those individuals will be subjected to threats, intimidation or discrimination.
A commission is a body that can be made up of people with little or no law training. People working in these commissions are appointed by the government. The government is likely to appoint those that are in line with the government’s ideological view point. It should be noted that Human Rights Commissions have a 90% conviction rate.
(9) In this section, hate speech means the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Detestation and vilification are subjective terms, which are defined by the reasonable man test. This test is no longer a metric to be relied on because today average Canadians can hold wildly divergent views on what is reasonable. Five decades ago, 95% of Canadians shared a culture, a tradition and an understanding of what constitutes “reasonable”. In Toronto 2022, you are more likely to bump into a Pakistani, Somali or Nigerian before an English-speaking Euro-Canadian. Canadian courts and commissions are increasingly taking on the meaning of reasonable from the perspective of non-Euro Canadians.
For greater certainty clarity — section 13 complaint
(1.1) For greater certainty, the Commission shall, under paragraph (1)(d), decline to deal with a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 if it is plain and obvious to the Commission that the complaint indicates no hate speech, as defined in subsection 13(9).
If we examine the implications of article (1.1), we can conclude that individuals will be prosecuted with the full force and resource of the state on the flimsiest of grounds. Since there is no liability for the person making the complaint, it is more than probable that it will at times be misused to settle grievances. The fact that there is financial compensation for victims of hate speech further incentivizes individuals to register complaints. We keep in mind that a commission is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies tend to grow and amass power to suit the interests of the bureaucrats running the bureaucracy. This inevitably bolsters the deep state that operates at cross purposes to the benefit of society.
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.
Hate speech laws are a drastic departure from Canadian – British legal tradition. Hate speech laws did not grow organically within a legal culture of precedent, one law leading to the next, then over centuries evolving into a legally stated and defined concept. In contrast, hate speech laws were created by an elite group of lawmakers, bureaucrats and academics. This law, 3.19 came about as a knee jerk response to a particular incident and was then foisted onto the Canadian public and shoehorned into the Canadian legal system.
Today in Canada there are more than a few Canadian legal minds that believe hate speech legislation is a mistake. “It throws the baby out with the bathwater.” The baby in the water is Free Speech. Now with Bill c36, Hate Speech does not even need be uttered in order for a citizen to be treated as a criminal.
Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
- (a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
- (b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
- (c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
- (d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.3(2)(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance.
811 A person bound by a recognizance under section 83.3, 810, 810.01, 810.1 or 810.2 who commits a breach of the recognizance is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.
End of inserted block
Refusal to enter into recognizance
Start of inserted block
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.
The bill aims to:
- amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to define a new discriminatory practice of communicating hate speech online, and to provide individuals with additional remedies to address hate speech;
- add a definition of “hatred” to section 319 of the Criminal Code based on Supreme Court of Canada decisions; and
- create a new peace bond in the Criminal Code designed to prevent hate propaganda offences and hate crimes from being committed, and make related amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Is Bill c36 Canada’s Version of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law?
Pakistan’s blasphemy law have long been a point of criticism against successive Pakistani governments. The October 2018 acquittal of Asia Bibi, a Christian Pakistani woman imprisoned for nearly a decade on blasphemy charges, and her subsequent immigration to Canada in May 2019 renewed a spotlight on this pressing issue. Although the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) welcomed the decision by the Pakistani Supreme Court to overturn Asia Bibi’s death sentence and was relieved she was able to safely depart Pakistan for Canada.
Declared an Islamic Republic in 1956, Pakistan has institutionalized the relationship between the state and the Islamic faith and accordingly sought to protect the beliefs and practices of its majority religion against any actions “intended to outrage religious feelings.” Under sections 295 and 298 of Pakistan’s Penal Code, individuals are prohibited from verbal and nonverbal actions deemed insulting to religious belief and practice. These provisions extend to protect physical documents such as copies of the Qur’an and other religious texts, places of worship, the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad, and other religious symbols.
The burden of proof required in these cases is minimal. Unsubstantiated, wildly implausible, or outright false accusations stemming from personal or domestic disputes are fairly common, especially against religious minorities. This fact was recognized by the Supreme Court in its decision to acquit Asia Bibi. As noted in USCIRF’s December 2018 report, Limitations on Minorities’ Religious Freedom in South Asia, blasphemy laws have also been used in Pakistan to limit and criminalize religious conversions and proselytization translating and uploading content to personal blogs and non-Muslim websites or writing Facebook posts deemed to be insulting to the Islamic faith; and making comments in personal conversations that witnesses attest to be blasphemous in nature.
Justin Trudeau’s Statement After the Beheading of French Teacher Samuel Depaty:
Everybody must be aware of our words and actions on others…. We will always defend freedom of expression. But everyone must act respectfully towards others and not try to needlessly or arbitrarily hurt someone we share this planet and this society with…. In a society such as ours we should strive to be respectful and not to insult anyone. It’s a matter of respect. it’s a matter of not trying to dehumanize or deliberately hurt someone. I think this is an extremely important debate to have with regards to having possible exceptions. But often the intention is less important because the action is still hurtful. So our society is based on respecting others and listening and learning so we should have this discussion in a respectful manner.
London Family Act.
cpac Panel addresses Islamophobia in Canada Tragedy of London Ontario – June 9, 2021
Interviewer: Politicians are concerned about balancing free speech. What’s your message to them?
Nawaz Tahir My message to them at the vigil and my message to them today is the same. What is the point of having freedom of expression when a Canadian family does not have the freedom to walk on the sidewalk and walk on the sidewalk without being murdered.
Interviewer; Some politicians are saying yes we are prepared to go further but we do have to be careful, to make sure that we have not shut down free speech. How do we achieve that balance?
Nawaz Tahir In Canada’s Constitution freedom of expression is not absolute. Through legislation, through civil law remedy, our constitution itself says that those freedoms are reasonably limited in a free Democratic society.
Multiculturalism and diversity cannot do other than dilute Canadian culture. The culture that was Canada will change as immigrants add their values to the Canadian Mosaic. The question not many ask and even less try to answer is, when is Canada diverse enough? Is the plan to forever enrich Canada with a stream of immigrants whose culture and values are specifically non-Western, non-European, non-Enlightenment, non-Liberal, non Feminism, pro Tribalism and pro-Ethnocentric, anti-Free Speech, hyper sectarian, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, until Canada resembles Pakistan. The way immigration is progressing soon all Toronto will resemble Mogadishu the Capital of Somalia. In Pakistan blasphemy laws are used to advance agendas and punish rivals.
Hate Speech Canada c36