[Arctic_Menace]

emart emart:

i think the nazi swastika and the symbol used culturally in asia are facing different ways... if that helps.

Actually, that's a common misconception. Both swastikas are facing "the same way", but the Nazi one is on a 45 degree angle...

[Mustang1]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

$1:

Uhh...that's not how it works...

If in a court of law it is proven that it is a symbol of hate he could be forced to take it down

Again...not how it works...please read up on Charter applications BEFORE wading into the thread. Thanks

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[CommanderSock]

$1:

Again...not how it works...please read up on Charter applications BEFORE wading into the thread. Thanks

It can be applied un-evenly. It is how our law system is. Lawyers use it to their advantage all the time.

[Mustang1]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

$1:

Again...not how it works...please read up on Charter applications BEFORE wading into the thread. Thanks

It can be applied un-evenly. It is how our law system is. Lawyers use it to their advantage all the time.

You're still not getting it...the Charter is designed to protect citizens from the government. What law is the person violating? Be careful here...you'll need to find legislation that prohibits showing National Socialist imagery AND that doesn't violate Charter provisions. If you don't know or have little idea as to how the Charter and constitution work, please refrain from commenting.

[CommanderSock]

$1:

You're still not getting it...the Charter is designed to protect citizens from the government. What law is the person violating? Be careful here...you'll need to find legislation that prohibits showing National Socialist imagery AND that doesn't violate Charter provisions. If you don't know or have little idea as to how the Charter and constitution work, please refrain from commenting.

Section 318: Advocating Genocide

The criminal act of "advocating genocide" is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group" — persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The intention or motivation would be the destruction of members of the targeted group. Any person who promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Defining Genocide

Section 318 defines genocide as any acts committed with intent to destroy an identifiable group —such as killing members of the group, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

* communicate statements,
* in a public place,
* incite hatred against an identifiable group,
* in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

* an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
* an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

* are established to be true
* were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
* were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
* were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada



Again, debatable. It comes back to police investigating if they're reasonable justification for a charge.

Maybe, maybe not.

On a different topic, if a Hezbollah or Al Queda symbol was in the place instead of a Swastika would the local reaction be any different?

[Mustang1]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

$1:

You're still not getting it...the Charter is designed to protect citizens from the government. What law is the person violating? Be careful here...you'll need to find legislation that prohibits showing National Socialist imagery AND that doesn't violate Charter provisions. If you don't know or have little idea as to how the Charter and constitution work, please refrain from commenting.

Section 318: Advocating Genocide

The criminal act of "advocating genocide" is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group" — persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The intention or motivation would be the destruction of members of the targeted group. Any person who promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Defining Genocide

Section 318 defines genocide as any acts committed with intent to destroy an identifiable group —such as killing members of the group, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

* communicate statements,
* in a public place,
* incite hatred against an identifiable group,
* in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:

* an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
* an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

* are established to be true
* were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
* were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
* were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada



Again, debatable. It comes back to police investigating if they're reasonable justification for a charge.

Maybe, maybe not.

On a different topic, if a Hezbollah or Al Queda symbol was in the place instead of a Swastika would the local reaction be any different?

Why not just post http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... e_hate.cfm next time? I'm hoping you actually understand this and you didn't just cut n' paste.

Section 318 - How is he advocating genocide? By merely posting historical imagery he's not specifically advocating that people go out and "kill" an identifiable group. If this was the case, musueams would be charged, WWII movies would be censored and teachers/professors charged. Nice try.

Section 319 - here's the kicker, "in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace" Is this present? By merely using historical imagery - granted, it's pretty heinous - is he willfully guilty of likely stirring up public hate against a group? Is he reckless? Yep, but he's not guilty of it and his Charter rights are still in place.

Nice try

[Dayseed]

Wow.

Maybe Commander Sock should read R v. Buzzanga and Durocher (O.CA 1979) and R v. Keegstra (SCC 1990) to learn the difference between "intending" hate and being reckless.

Nice xeroxing job, good quality, did you get it done professionally at Kinko's?

Want to read a quick primer? Here you go fuck-nut.

Hate Propoganda and You.

[CommanderSock]

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... e_hate.cfm

Dayseed you're a douche. This is not Buzzanga case jackass. This is totally different.

And o wow, xerox LMAO rfmlao blah blah there's the link, i did copy and paste it off but i'm assuming it was no secret.

[Mustang1]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

Dayseed you're a douche. This is not Buzzanga case jackass. This is totally different.

And o wow, xerox LMAO rfmlao blah blah there's the link, i did copy and paste it off but i'm assuming it was no secret.

I'm still waiting for you address my salient points. Uh-oh...now you have to apply the cut n' paste.

[Dayseed]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

Dayseed you're a douche. This is not Buzzanga case jackass. This is totally different.

And o wow, xerox LMAO rfmlao blah blah there's the link, i did copy and paste it off but i'm assuming it was no secret.

Actually Commander Suck, it does include the Buzzanga and Durocher case. The heart of the matter is intent. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that mere recklessness (including dumb decisions) do not qualify a person to be indicted under this section. I can't help it if your friend at Kinko's didn't xerox court decisions, but your ignorance doesn't make you right.

Now you're getting a negative douche point. You're just not fresh.

[CommanderSock]

$1:

I'm still waiting for you address my salient points. Uh-oh...now you have to apply the cut n' paste.

$1:

Actually Commander Suck, it does include the Buzzanga and Durocher case. The heart of the matter is intent. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that mere recklessness (including dumb decisions) do not qualify a person to be indicted under this section. I can't help it if your friend at Kinko's didn't xerox court decisions, but your ignorance doesn't make you right.

Now you're getting a negative douche point. You're just not fresh.

That point in the article is intent is unknown yet. He does however does mention "Katz" which references the town's jewish mayor. No cut'n paste needed there boys.

[Dayseed]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

$1:

Uhh...that's not how it works...

If in a court of law it is proven that it is a symbol of hate he could be forced to take it down

This is your line of thinking to which I was responding. You completely botched this point of law, followed it up with a hideous interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then you xeroxed the first thing that came up under the search of "Criminal Code Hate Provisions" on Google.

If the person who flew the swastika wrote "Danger Katz" on it, then the WHOLE thing could constitute a crime. But not simply flying a swastika.

You're just showing everybody here the danger of heading off to Kinko's to try and prove points.

[Mustang1]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

That point in the article is intent is unknown yet.

That's addressing my points? Come on...a little shallow, don't ya' think?

$1:

He does however does mention "Katz" which references the town's jewish mayor. No cut'n paste needed there boys.

It's not against the law to be a racist. Maybe you should've cut n' pasted instead.