"When the Law Becomes an Ass!" - A Brief Analysis Of Criminal Code 319(2) of Canadian Law - Part Four

Reni Sentana-Ries By Reni Sentana-Ries, 23rd Oct 2016 | Follow this author | RSS Feed | Short URL http://nut.bz/2d7djr82/
Posted in Wikinut>Writing>Politics

At the moment Canada is suffering once again a case against an informed citizen who has taken liberty to warn Canadians on his website radicalpress.com of the dangers coming from a self-proclaimed elitist group in their efforts to rob us, the people, of our last remaining bastions of fundamental rights - in this case the right to free speech.

"Burden of Proof" now Rests with the Defendant!

RYLEY, Alberta, Canada, November 15, 2012, by Reni Sentana-Ries

All of the comments on Canada’s hate law 319(2) are my personal opinions on this sordid matter and should not be taken as legal advice.

And now for the bomb shell on this stinking issue: REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAJORITY JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA HAVE DECREED FROM THEIR HIGH AND EXALTED POSITIONS AS GODS OF SUPPOSED JUSTICE, CRIMINAL CODE 319(2) IS NOT ONLY CONTRAVENING THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IN ITSELF IS A CONTRADICTORY GARBLED PIECE OF WRIT DEVOID OF LOGIC, WORSE THAN WHAT GRADE 4 STUDENTS CAN COME UP WITH! And
here is why:

Subsection (2) says: Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty of...

BUT...

Subsection (3a) says: No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

Do you notice the departure from fundamental British Common Law built on the presumption of innocence, where the burden of proof must rest with the prosecution? Why then do we find a sudden reversal of that principle by the writers of this particular law, where it is now the task of the defendant to prove that he or she is innocent?

The Supreme Court should have long ago discovered this irregularity in the law and struck it down for that reason alone. But alas, it was imposed on the people for a political purpose, and that purpose is to effectively conceal information of subversive nature which some individuals or groups have involved themselves in, and the bearers of such news they believe should be silenced. Controlled official news outlets will never tell you that, for if they did, their managers and reporters would all be instantly fired for telling the truth.

If the “burden of proof” were on the prosecution to prove that the “communicated statements” are lies, then they simply could not do so on truthful information, and instantly lose their case.

And so we find that Canada’s justice system has abandoned the Common Law principle and reversed it to make it impossible for the accused to prove his of her statements truthful. Even if it were possible, the judge could simply say: “I don’t believe you.” Then what? The case is lost for the defendant and the guillotine of a conviction is coming down.

NEXT...

Qualifers to CC319(2) Make Conviction of Accused Impossible!

A conviction under this law is forbidden where the statements cover a religious subject.

3(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

I am in agreement with this statement.

NEXT...

Qualifier (c) has in all convictions of people under this law been ignored by judges as well as jurors. No one may be convicted if...

3(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or...

All persons ever charged under Criminal Code 319(2) have in all cases believed their public statements to be true!

Defenders of free speech do not go public with information they know not to be true. They are also not interested in publishing slander which falls into a different category of law, where the issue of “hate” is not a central focus of the case. It is therefore my opinion that IT IS THEORETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER THIS SECTION OF CANADA’S LAW, UNLESS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OCCURS WHERE SUBSECTION 3(c) IS BEING IGNORED BY JUDGES, OR JURORS, OR BOTH!

AND A LAW WHERE IN THEORY NO CONVICTION IS EVER POSSIBLE BECAUSE
THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, IS THEREFORE IN ITSELF ULTRA VIRES, NULL AND VOID, AND THEREFORE ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL!


Clause 3(c) of Criminal Code 319 makes every conviction a blatant miscarriage of justice.

The Accused's Belief in his Own Statements Renders Him Innocent

Friends, we can read. This section needs no lawyer or judge to explain to us what it means. We can see it for ourselves: NO HONEST JUDGE CAN CONVICT THE ACCUSED OF “WILLFULLY PROMOTING HATRED” ON STATEMENTS THE ACCUSED BELIEVED TO BE TRUE! AND NO JUDGE HAS EVER ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHETHER HE OR SHE BELIEVED IN HIS OR HER OWN STATEMENTS, FOR IF HE EVER DID, THE JUDGE, UPON HEARING THE REPLY IN THE POSITIVE, WOULD BE COMPELLED TO RULE THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED!

But is such simple procedure actually happening? No, because all cases in this phony arena are politically driven and decided upon - not of what is true or untrue - but on what is politically correct and what is not.

CC 319(2) destroys lives, is unconstitutional, contentious, ultra vires in its internal contradiction, used as witch hunt tool to silence speakers of truth, and was designed primarily for sheltering people involved in underhanded activity to spare them public exposure.

Anyone ever accused of breaking this law raises issues in... “statements (which) were relevant to any subject of public interest, (and) the discussion of which was for the public benefit,” and believed them to be true; then where is the offense? It simply does not exist, and any conviction is a miscarriage of justice - even under the law the way it stands now!

How can a law be valid when a conviction is impossible to achieve the way it was written in the first place? Only where judges and jurors are dishonest can the accused be convicted, a situation which then by its own gravity slides into a miscarriage of justice for every case.

Hate and Love belong to the same scale and neither can therefore be criminalized!

Besides all that - what is hate? Hate is a human emotion belonging to everyone for everyone is capable of it. If "hate" may no longer become expressed in speech or in words, then how in heavens name can we even begin to fix the problems this world is in today? The battle connected to "hate" is a battle between good and evil; and we permit no one to prevent us from participating in it with words - whether spoken or written - to assure ourselves that good will always remain victorious over evil.

Unless the attitude among politicians, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and jurors change, and all involved in the “administration of justice” recognize the flaws in this legislation, I personally hold no hope of a successful conclusion for the gentleman currently being harassed in British Columbia by the same perverse law of C.C. 319(2) as my trust in the integrity of judges has been destroyed a long time ago.

Tags

Cc3192, Criminal Code 3192, Free Speech, Hate, Hate Mongers, Hate Speech, Human Rights, Sentana-Ries, Topham

Meet the author

author avatar Reni Sentana-Ries
My ideal is to awaken all national leaders and all people under their care equally to the fact that we as a human family have arrived at the crossroad to a New Era.

Share this page

moderator Peter B. Giblett moderated this page.
If you have any complaints about this content, please let us know

Comments

Add a comment
Username
Can't login?
Password