expired
- 主题发起人 _small_
- 开始时间
Hate Propaganda is defined as:
Any communication, poster and/or graffiti used by a person or group which promotes hatred based on race religion, nationality or ethnic origin.
There are three Hate Propaganda sections in the Criminal Code. These sections are separate from the Criminal Code occurrences.
Section 318, Advocating Genocide
Section 319 (1), Public Incitement of Hatred
Section 319 (2), Willful Promotion of Hatred
Advocating Genocide
Section 318
Is to argue or urge people to kill others because on their color, race, religion or ethnic origin. Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group namely:
Killing members of the group, or
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
Public Incitement of Hatred
Section 319 (1)
Everyone who, by communicating statements in any 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 offence.
Willful Promotion of Hatred
Section 319 (2)
Everyone who by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an offence
Any communication, poster and/or graffiti used by a person or group which promotes hatred based on race religion, nationality or ethnic origin.
There are three Hate Propaganda sections in the Criminal Code. These sections are separate from the Criminal Code occurrences.
Section 318, Advocating Genocide
Section 319 (1), Public Incitement of Hatred
Section 319 (2), Willful Promotion of Hatred
Advocating Genocide
Section 318
Is to argue or urge people to kill others because on their color, race, religion or ethnic origin. Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group namely:
Killing members of the group, or
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
Public Incitement of Hatred
Section 319 (1)
Everyone who, by communicating statements in any 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 offence.
Willful Promotion of Hatred
Section 319 (2)
Everyone who by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an offence
here is a good example
http://bbs.comefromchina.com/forum183/thread827176.html
I know someone has their own version of dictionary to redefine evrything they need to change.
http://bbs.comefromchina.com/forum183/thread827176.html
I know someone has their own version of dictionary to redefine evrything they need to change.
Happy Angel
知名会员
- 注册
- 2010-08-17
- 消息
- 999
- 荣誉分数
- 20
- 声望点数
- 148
How do we know someone intends to incite hatred without Riven or a lawyer?
Mr. James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Eckville, Alberta from the early 1970s until his dismissal in 1982. In 1984 Mr. Keegstra was charged under s. 319(2) (then 281.2(2)) of the Criminal Code with unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating "anti-semitic statements to his students. He was convicted by a jury in a trial before McKenzie J. of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
Mr. Keegstra's teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers". He taught his classes that Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution. According to Mr. Keegstra, Jews "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy" and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Mr. Keegstra expected his students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered.
Prior to his trial, Mr. Keegstra applied to the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta for an order quashing the charge on a number of grounds, the primary one being that s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter. Among the other grounds of appeal was the allegation that the defence of truth found in s. 319(3)(a) of the Code violates the Charter's presumption of innocence. The application was dismissed by Quigley J., and Mr. Keegstra was thereafter tried and convicted. He then appealed his conviction to the Alberta Court of Appeal, raising the same Charter issues. The Court of Appeal unanimously accepted his argument, and it is from this judgment that the Crown appeals.
Mr. Keegstra's teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as "treacherous", "subversive", "sadistic", "money-loving", "power hungry" and "child killers". He taught his classes that Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution. According to Mr. Keegstra, Jews "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy" and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Mr. Keegstra expected his students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered.
Prior to his trial, Mr. Keegstra applied to the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta for an order quashing the charge on a number of grounds, the primary one being that s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter. Among the other grounds of appeal was the allegation that the defence of truth found in s. 319(3)(a) of the Code violates the Charter's presumption of innocence. The application was dismissed by Quigley J., and Mr. Keegstra was thereafter tried and convicted. He then appealed his conviction to the Alberta Court of Appeal, raising the same Charter issues. The Court of Appeal unanimously accepted his argument, and it is from this judgment that the Crown appeals.
