Connecting the Dots...CTD... Jim, Diane, Monika, Discussing Canada Bill 319, Jan 19, 2023

Holotruther
Published on Jan 20, 2023
Discussing the VAGUE and AMBIGUOUS HOLOCAUST DENIER Law, deceitfully hidden in the Budget Law proposal.
************************
CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE 319 ('probably unconstitutional')
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anti-holocaust-denial-bill-charter-budget-1.6446671

Putting the Holocaust on trial: But Zwibel ("I think it's problematic to criminalize Holocaust denial," said Cara Zwibel, lawyer and director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association) warned the legislation could give Holocaust deniers a platform. She cited the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who was tried twice in the 1980s for publishing the pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last. Although convicted, Zundel was eventually acquitted when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country's laws against spreading false news as a violation of free speech. His trials also put the Holocaust on trial, with the crown bringing in Holocaust researchers and survivors to support their case, while the defence put noted Holocaust deniers on the stand. "What being prosecuted did for [Zundel] was give him a big platform and basically allow him to parade a bunch of witnesses in court to try and prove that the Holocaust didn't happen and have the government put survivors before the court. It's atrocious," Zwibel said.
************************
Under section 319(1), everyone 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 is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two yearsâ€™ imprisonment, or of a summary conviction offence.

Section 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that wilfully promote hatred against an â€œidentifiable groupâ€ (which has the same meaning as in section 318). As with offences under section 318, no prosecution under section 319(2) can be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Section 319(7) defines â€œcommunicatingâ€ to include communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means.33 â€œPublic placeâ€ is defined to include any place to which the public has access by right or by invitation, express or implied. â€œStatementsâ€ include words spoken or written or recorded electronically, electromagnetically or otherwise, and also include gestures, signs or other visible representations.

Some of the terms used in these provisions have been further defined by Canadian courts. In a 1990 decision, the Supreme Court said that â€œâ€˜hatredâ€™ connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.â€ It added:

Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.34
The Ontario Court of Appeal has noted that the term â€œwilfullyâ€ does not include recklessness, but may include wilful blindness. In other words, accused persons must either have known that their actions would have the effect of promoting hatred, or at least have known or â€œstrongly suspectedâ€ that inquiry on their part respecting the consequences of their acts would result in the â€œactual knowledgeâ€ required to satisfy the mens rea requirement for the offence.35

Any person charged under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code has available four special defences set out in section 319(3). These defences are that:

*** the communicated statements are true;
*** an opinion or argument was expressed in good faith and either concerned a religious subject or was based on a belief in a religious text;
*** the statements were relevant to a subject of public interest and were on reasonable grounds believed to be true; and
*** the statements were meant to point out matters that produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group and were made in good faith for the purpose of their removal.

The reverse onus on the accused persons to prove that their statements were true was found to be a justifiable limitation on the right to be presumed innocent under section 11(d) of the Charter.36 These special defences are not available to those charged under sections 318 and 319(1) of the Criminal Code.