Criminal Complaint Filed Against Ron Banerjee

...for acting up at Ford Fest.  Don't have details as yet, other than its been filed with 41 Division, but it is more than a rumour.  Will update when I hear more.

Section 13 Is Officially Dead...

Long Live Section 13.  But during its death spiral the whole notion of having a hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act was judged perfectly constitutional.  And  with a LPC government in power, S13 or something similar could be reinserted without having to sweat the constitutional issues.  It would be a vote getter, and it would be something that could be done on the cheap.

So we shall see.

Free Dominion Is BACK!!! Sort of...

They've gone read-only, for the time being.  Meanwhile, it worth nothing the occasion that brought them out.

 A federal appeals court has put the final nail in the coffin of Mark Lemire's constitutional appeal  of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the hate speech provision). You can read more about it here; I've written extensively on the matter here; and the court doc is here.  I've only glanced at the latter, but its obvious that Marc Lemire has been defeated utterly.  Even the act's penalty provision (section 54.1), severed in a previous ruling, has been judged constitutional.

Why worry about legislation that has already been repealed?  Well, a Trudeau-led government that wanted to re-establish section 13 and 54.1  could do so knowing that they have passed constitutional muster. And remember, the Tories snuck their changes through the system as a private member's bill in the dead of night. Divided and leaderless as they might well be after 2015, they would not want to revisit these measures, especially since Mark Steyn, their strongest advocate on the file, might be playing piano for tips and cigarettes at some  skeezy  U.S. strip club by that time.

Hate Speech in C-13

Indeed, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act does contain several "tweeks" to Canada's hate speech laws.

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

To me the only noticable change I can see is the addition of "national origin" to the list of identifiable groups. This is a holdover from when the bill was called the  Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, and had no pretence to being cyber bullying legislation.  I once wrote about that particular change being somewhat sinister, but was told to chill

There is also this:

320.1 (1) If a judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is material that is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or computer data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, that is stored on and made available to the public through a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that is within the jurisdiction of the court, the judge may order the custodian of the computer system to [delete the material]

...which looks like a rehash of Clause 5 in Investigate Powers, which would mean that linking to hate speech becomes a crime.  Although how that would be workable post Crookes would be an interesting question.

Well, IANAL so that's the best I can do with it.  A real lawyer discusses the various issues raised by the new bill here.

Update: Laura in the comments notes that

The addition of age, sex, and mental or physical disability is also new. The inclusion of "sex" is particularly significant; women face gendered hate speech all the time, particularly online, and since the hate speech provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act were removed earlier this year, there's been nothing in law to address this.

Tory Appointees Move To Muscle Bill C-304 Through Senate

The link is to Marc Lemire's site (one-time leader of the white supremacist Heritage Front), so you may not want to click though, but what he's saying sounds right: the Senate Tories are no longer allowing their Liberal counter-parts to adjourn debate on Bill C-304.  By the end of the month, it may be a little bit easier to spread Hate in Canada.  A gift to the Tory base in time for their summer convention.

PS.  Although in the next day's Hansard (18th) Senator Lovelace Nicholas successfully adjourns debate again!  Maybe this will get dragged out longer than Marc seems to think.

Freelance Filmmaker Christoper Di Armani Wins The Internet

You can no more outlaw “hate” than you can outlaw murder, rape, theft or lying politicians.

Pride of the speechys, this guy.

Your Daily Nazi: Help Save Canada's Hate Speech Law!

If you missed reading through one the links in my last post, the Harper Tories are trying to force Bill C-304 (which would repeal the hate-speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act) through the Senate before their late June convention so they can toss some red meat to the mouth breathers and prorogue parliament.  It is imperative that the Liberal Senators not allow this, even if it means sitting into July or later.  A prorogation could push back the bill's passage another year or two.  It would be interesting to have the gov's "soft on hate crimes"  record available  for the 2015 election.

FreeD Makes The Big Leagues: Norton Software Dubs It A "Hate" Site

So I was checking out the wifi at my new place by downloading a few software updates and got something from Norton that I didn't want (and have since uninstalled).  I find out about it when I cruise over to FreeD to wallow in teh crazy and see this (looks better when you click on it):

Now, FreeD's been pretty tame lately, especially since they kicked out Ed Kennedy.  And really, even at its worst, it was 95% lunatic conservatism, only 15% actual hate.  But whatever.  The folks at Norton have them on their official shit-list.  Whether they are deserving or not, I would be interesting in knowing how this list is compiled.

Ezra Facing 2nd Hate Speech Charge?

Dawg has the details.  But, as to the reason given by the AG's rep for NOT going forward the first time, that he "was afraid Levant would make a big noise about [the charges]", I frankly think not.  That's because, for one thing, Ezra's career is on the line.  Nobody in broadcasting will hire a guy with a hate-speech conviction.  Ezra will grovel  and beg and eat sand if that's what it takes to wriggle out of something like this.   And, for another thing, Ezra's preferred style of noise making--smear everyone left, right, and center--has left him with facing a long series of defamation suits.  I doubt he can afford to slander anyone else.  Especially not more lawyers and a few investigating police officers.  Thirdly, I think those in the press  that were eager enough to rally behind Ezra in his crusade against HRCs will finally abandon him, having had a chance to watch him  perform at The Sun News Network for two years.   While they've complained mightily about the recent SCC ruling against Bill Whatcott, they haven't really gone to the wall for Ezra this time out.  Perhaps they are thinking: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Ezra Off Hook For Hate Speech Charge?

Dr Dawg, and Haroon Siddiqui in the piece Dawg references, think that the Ontario Attorney General, John Gerretson, will not file hate speech charges against Ezra Levant for his anti-Roma screed of six months ago.

However, the following except from a missive by Gina Csanyi-Robah of the Toronto Roma Community Centre, re her meeting with police and the AG's people on March 14th, seems to indicate that no final decision has yet been made:

This is dated March 20th, so I would assume it is the latest information available.  Its also easier to read if you click on the image.

Ezra Levant...My Part In His Downfall

Well,it finally happened:

On Thursday October 11, 2012, Toronto's Roma Community Centre officially reported a hate crime to the Toronto Police Services and an investigation is now underway.

This was in response to overtly racist, prejudicial, and demeaning statements made by Sun News Network commentator, Ezra Levant, which were broadcast live on television throughout Canada.

And indeed the Toronto police have confirmed that an investigation is underway.  The way these things work is they will interview everyone involved, including Ezra, and then decide whether or not to approach the attorney general.  So Ezra will get a chance to do his whole "outraged" act, as with the gal from the Alberta Human Rights Commission back in 2008:



God, those were the days.

And I'll tell you a true story. Back in 2008 I was an up-and-coming blogger, and Ezra in the process of crashing and burning The Western Standard.  He had bragged on his own blog that there would be some awesome video footage coming next morning, and to stay tuned for the exclusive.  But me, realizing the time difference between here and Alta., got up early and pinched the footage off his youtube channel before he could post it, then shopped the link to NN and other news outlets.  The rest, as they say, is history...the Neo-Nazis, the lawsuits, the repeal of S13.

Remember, old Ez didn't have much clout at the time; if he had pushed the story it probably would have gone nowhere.  So in a way he owes me for relaunching his career.  He couldn't have moved out of his dad's basement, come to Toronto and made himself a Fox News North Super Star, without my help.

Mind you, he also wouldn't have been able to launch his Anti-Roma rant and get himself investigated. Now the guy might wind up doing slammer time, married to the inmate with the most cigarettes. Funny how things go.  Its almost like Life is a Wheel, that goes up before it goes down...

Arthur Topham Update

The latest update on the saga of Arthur Topham can be found here.  For those unfamiliar with his story, a hate speech complaint (criminal code section 319) was recently  filed against him after the repeal of section 13 made it impossible to deal with his wildly antisemitic writings via the HRC/tribunal process.

While Mr. Topham still cannot post to his Radical Press site he is being allowed to use email.  The most important bit from his email to the gang at FreeD is:

Just prior to the Thanksgiving weekend the local Crown Council Jennifer Johnson sent Doug Christie an email saying that she had recommended the laying of the charge against me but that it still had to go further up the legal ladder before final approval from the BC Assistant Deputy Attorney General. Only then would the indictment be approved. 

So there you have it.  We are now officially in the world post S13.  Hatemongers may enjoy it even less.

Update On Levant's Roma Rant

It has now drawn a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta:

Roma Community Centre (RCC) of Toronto, Ontario, wishes to file a complaint with Alberta Law Society (ALS) against Ezra Levant. According to the ALS Code of Conduct, “Alberta’s lawyers are expected to conduct themselves and their law practices in ways which are highly ethical and above reproach.” We believe that Mr. Levant demonstrated highly unethical attitudes and behaviour in a recent broadcast of “The Source with Ezra Levant” (Sept. 5th, 2012, at 5 p.m. EDT, Sun News Network). We also feel that for a member of the bar to promote hatred against an identifiable ethnic group is conduct unbecoming a lawyer, and wonder if Mr. Levant’s broadcast violates Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred’.

Here the RCC "wonders" whether Levant's broadcast, which I have written about here, might have violated section 319, so I am not sure what concrete steps, if any, they have taken towards filing a criminal complaint.   The body of the RCC letter does confirm, though, that they have gone to the CRTC and Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.  From the tone of the Sun TV's eventual apology to the ROMA which, I am told, was followed in the same broadcast by second apology for Ezra's on-air cursing, it sounds like any lawyer's fees to defend against all these complaints will be borne by Ezra alone.

Criminal Hate Speech Complaint To Be Filed Against Ezra, Sun News?

When Deboaned noted in my comments section  that  police were "taking an interest" in Levant's anti-Roma screed, I didn't think much of it.  But now I am informed by usually reliable off-line sources that, indeed,  the CBSC/CRTC complaints are essentially filed and the police have been approached.  I don't know if, typically, the  fact of an investigation is made public until charges are laid/not laid, but apparently behind the scenes, wheels are turning.

Audio From The Video That Got Ezra Levant Censored By Sun TV

...can be found here (warning: it may meet the legal def of hate speech).  Meanwhile, no word about what Fox News North plans to do about The Ez's latest transgression.  Kind of what the way they behaved when he defamed George Soros.  First silence, and then a grovelling apology on Ezra's behalf.  Of course The Ez won't ever admit anything.  So I would implore Marvin Levant, Ezra's dad, who I know reads this blog, to intervene somehow.  Your kid's out of control.  You want him living in the basement again?  Then let things slide.  Otherwise slap him around a bit so he flies right, but not too far right.

Ezra Levant In More Hate Speech Trouble

Gina Csanyi-Robah of the Roma Community Center writes:

As a result of Levant's hate speech targeting our community, the RCC has been in contact with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and is currently writing formal complaints to the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council, the Canadian Media Association, the Canadian Ethnic media Association, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

There are examples through the link.  One of the nastier bits is:

Being a Gypsy isn't like being Black, or being Gay, or being a woman or even Romanian, where many Gypsies come from. Just like being from Sicily doesn't make you part of the Mafia. Being a Gypsy is a positive choice, like being a Blood or a Crip, like joining the Cosa Nostra. For centuries, these roving highway gangs have mocked the law and robbed their way across Europe. Now, because of our broken refugee system, they're here in Canada in the thousands. And they've brought the Gypsy Crime Wave with them. Yeah, no thanks, I'm not interested in calling them 'Roma' or 'Travelers' or having a Human Rights Commission investigate where we as a society have done them wrong, maybe dispatching social workers (laughs) the social workers will just have their wallets stolen. I want to dispatch cops and send the bad Gypsies to Hungary on the next plane. Just warn the flight attendants (chuckles) not to wear any jewelry on the flight!"

The OHRC doesn't adjudicate hate speech, only racist signs and symbols and the like, so I doubt that approach will go anywhere.  But Ezra's is a sickening enough diatribe that it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't run afoul of CBSC regulations...again.

Oh Dear Meir Weinstein!

First substantive story of out today's Al-Quds Day T.O. event:

A verbal spat between a man and a woman resulted in her asking him: “Would you like to kill all the Muslims in the world?” to which he replied “100%.”

When asked about the exchanged words, JDL spokesman Meir Weinstein said “some studies have shown 10% of Muslims support terrorist groups.”

At first glance this suggests that one of the JDL folks went "off message".  Presumably, in the hours and days to follow, Meir will explain at greater length.

Update: In the comments Meir writes:

I have no idea who these 2 people are. Never seen them or witnessed any of there yelling match.

Arthur Topham Update

From Doug Christie's newsletter. Updated from here.  319(2) is, of course, one of the Criminal Code hate speech provisions.

What Will Replace Section 13 Of The Canadian Human Rights Act

Rob Nicholson responds to my email.  Comments below:

Correspondence from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada‏

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Government’s proposed amendments to strengthen the hate crimes provisions of the Criminal Code. I regret the delay in responding.

As you are aware, on September 30, 2011, Conservative Member of Parliament Mr. Brian Storseth introduced Private Member’s Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), into the House of Commons. The Bill proposes to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which empowers the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints regarding the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.


Our government supports the repeal of section 13 as it has been found to be subjective and unnecessarily vague when it comes to informing Canadians about what can and cannot be said on the Internet. We firmly believe that the Criminal Code is the best vehicle for combating hate propaganda and we remain committed to the promotion and protection of free speech by all Canadians.

To that end, on February 14, 2012, the Government tabled in the House of Commons Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Among other things, the Bill proposes to expand the definition of “identifiable group” for the crimes of inciting hatred in a public place likely to lead to a breach of the peace and the wilful promotion of hatred, which are found in section 319 of the Criminal Code. The criteria of national origin, age, sex, and mental or physical disability would be added to the current definition of “identifiable group” for these two offences. In addition, the criterion of national origin would be added to the definition of “identifiable group” for the offence of advocating or promoting genocide, contained in subsection 318(1) of the Criminal Code.


Thank you again for writing.
Yours truly,
The Honourable Rob Nicholson

If this is all they plan to do, some obvious problems:

1) The requirement that the AG must approve hate speech charges would appear to remain, which in practice means that such charges will be almost impossible to lay.  There were rumors going about that this requirement might be removed, but apparently no such luck.

2) Any expansion of the criterion can trigger a legal challenge to the criminal code provisions, which might mean section 319 falls and  the country's winds up being without any hate speech legislation.

3) The bill containing these new provisions is the infamous C-30, which the government appears to have already given up on.

So, not a very impressive response.

FreeD Proves Useful: New Hate Speech Provisions Clarified

The veritable "penny in the poop"--a genuine contribution to political discourse from Free Dominion.   Because Rob Nicholson will tell the wing-nuts there what he won't tell us normal folk.  Not that what's he saying is crazy in this case, its just the first official explication of Clause 5 of Bill 51 that I've seen.  That's the gov's update to Canadian hate-speech laws that talks about how they apply to the Internet, in particular addressing the question: can linking to defamation be defamation?

I would like to take this opportunity to address a few of your concerns. This former clause proposed amending section 319 of the Criminal Code, which creates two offences under the heading of hate propaganda that involve the act of communicating. Specifically, subsection 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements that incite hatred against any identifiable group in any public place, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Subsection 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate statements, other than in a private conversation, which wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group. Identifiable group is defined by subsection 318(4) to mean any section of the public distinguishable by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. Subsection 319(7) currently defines communicating for the purposes of these sections as communicating by telephone, broadcasting, or other audible or visible means.


Clause 5 proposed to update this definition to state that communicating means communicating by any means and includes making available. While it is true that providing a hyperlink would fall under this definition in certain circumstances—as it would under the current definition of communicating in subsection 319(7)—providing a hyperlink alone is not enough to commit either of these two hate propaganda offences. As the previous paragraph shows, many other elements must be proven before a person can be found guilty. The amendment merely described the manner in which a prohibited statement could have been made. It would not have determined whether a statement was of a prohibited nature, or whether a communicator had the necessary guilty mind to commit the offence. The necessity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a guilty mind for these crimes is an important safeguard that protects freedom of expression. For example, in the case of R. v. Keegstra, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the crime of “wilfully” promoting hatred against an identifiable group means “intentionally” promoting hatred. This excludes the reckless or negligent promotion of hatred from the scope of this crime. These stringent requirements already exist in the Criminal Code and would not have been changed by the amendments proposed in former Bill C-51.

Short answer to the question posed above.  Sometimes linking to defamation can be defamation, but sometimes not, depending on a whole lotta other shit.  IMHO, its all just the Crookes case generalized from defamation to hate speech, but IANAL. Also interesting to note that Nicholson thinks all of this is already derivable from the legislation pre clause 5.