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

Reni Sentana-Ries By Reni Sentana-Ries, 23rd Oct 2016 | Follow this author | RSS Feed | Short URL http://nut.bz/34v0as-k/
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.

The "Law" as it Stands...

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

No portion of the following comments on a Canadian law should be taken as legal advice. They are merely a reflection of my own opinion.

In this examination of Canada’s Criminal Code 319 I have included Subsections (3) and (6), although they are hardly ever mentioned by people discussing the issue of “hate” in Canadian law.

Let me give you the text of C. C. 319 (1)(2)(3)(6) as relating to this examination:

319. (1) Every one 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...

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

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

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

(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...

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Firstly, any charges against Canadians under this Code must be approved by the provincial Attorney General. He is a politician, and as such is subject to periodic approval by the people’s democratic vote, and he must therefore be careful to not be seen as being the one guilty of undermining free speech by carelessly approving cases against his citizens.

Dishonesty inside the Attorney General's Department

Obviously such consideration is never the concern of unelected staff members from his department, who, if given the opportunity, may gladly step forward in the Attorney General's name to give an approval of prosecution where their own political philosophies concur with objectives for the laying of “hate” charges.

The writers of the 319 legislation may have been sincere in preventing the laying of frivolous charges by including the requirement of approval by the Attorney General, however his underlings have hi-jacked the process and quietly circumvent this severe restriction by approving cases in his name without perhaps the Attorney General even having had prior knowledge of it.

I know of a case where a second level underling gave approval for laying hate charges, and when the accused tried to subpoena the Attorney General himself before the judge as witness to find out whether he even knew about his department’s approval to proceed with laying charges, the defendant was conveniently denied the request for such a high-level witness of the case to appear.

And not only was in this instance the defendant denied the Attorney General as witness, a judge even absolved the official complainant to the case to appear as witness. Isn’t it amazing to see just to what extent fairness can be compromised when the issue of alleged “hate” comes before a court where judges and prosecutors have strong personal prejudices mixed into a case put before them?

The Nature of the Attorney General of Alberta's Failure

Yet the law says in (6): No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

To me the "Attorney General" is an elected person and not a rubber stamping office. The person holding that office must provide approval to proceed in a “hate” case, and when he discovers that one of his staff members has circumvented his authority, he still has the option to fire that person and call off all criminal proceedings against a Canadian citizen, if in his mind the charges were laid frivolously to begin with. It just takes courage of conviction and internal fortitude to do so.

So, has “the Attorney General” approved the prosecution of a citizen when a member of his office has done it in his name? I believe not! In my opinion such dramatic action requires the A.G.'s personal signature, particularly when the law explicitly says so, and where that is not being done, we have a miscarriage of justice in the making!

Justiceland has rules, and where they are not followed, the reputation of the entire system becomes shaky.

We will continue in Part Four


Bill Of Rights, Canadas Hate Laws, Cc3192, Constitution, Free Speech, Hate Law, Hate Speech, Human Rights, Sentana-Ries

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


Add a comment
Can't login?