"When the Law Becomes an Ass!" A Brief Analysis on Criminal Code 319(2) of Canadian Law, Part One

Reni Sentana-Ries By Reni Sentana-Ries, 5th Oct 2016 | Follow this author | RSS Feed | Short URL http://nut.bz/6tbniyit/
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.

I have intricate experience in this field of Canada's law, and therefore offer my insights into the sinister aspects of this law.


RYLEY, Alberta, Canada, November 13, 2012, by Reni Sentana-Ries

What follows is not to be considered legal advice, but my opinion. I understand law and am comfortable in that environment of expression.

The granting of justice does not happen through the law itself, and happens never where the law is an ass, but justice can be administered through one or more judges, or through a group of jurors. And at that level we see failures happening....

- where either not all facts were presented whereupon a correct verdict could be arrived at

- where judges make rulings that are false for political reasons

- where miscarriage of justice is happening out of pure fear for possible consequences should justice be delivered

- or where jurors are simply unqualified or intimidated to render justice in cases where political correctness is at stake.

All these situations jeopardize the proper administration of justice.

The world knows by now that in Canada the fundamental right of freedom of speech has been under attack for decades. The former Prime Minister of Canada, Trudeau, insisted on the inclusion of a basic bill of rights for Canada’s Constitution, the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms,”and so for now that is all we are allowed to go by.

Our Constitutional Right to Free Speech

In that Charter, among other basic rights, we are made to believe to have the following which states:

2(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication,

but during the mid 80’s a law was added which has since created a lot of conflict among people where some are insisting that their right to publish politically uncomfortable truth not be infringed upon; and others who are determined to keep unflattering truth hidden, for it is a negative reflection on their culture.

The human emotion of “hate” entered the arena of criminality, where not the action causing hate is being dealt with, but the emotional response in the form of disgust and revulsion became criminalized should it find its expression in words and published through a media. At that point the issue of truth vs. lies became irrelevant, and was replaced by whether words reflect the emotion of hate or whether they do not.

And so in Canada's evolution of the law system we have digressed away from freedom of speech to no freedom of speech, for if the emotion of hate is no longer allowed to become expressed in words, then liberal freedom of expression has perished from a bullet in its back. Conversely, such a severe restriction on speech grants a free license for people to continue activities which an informed society would otherwise find revolting.

Secular Law (Criminal Code 319(2)) in Contradiction to Fundamental Law (Charter of Rights and Freedom Sec. 2b)

And thus Canada’s Criminal Code Section 319 was born, which states

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

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

(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.

After that the struggle in Canada became a matter of which law should prevail in the end: The hate-speech law, where free-speech is forbidden, or free-speech law where hate-speech is allowed in order to preserve free speech.

And to the annoyance of some the free-speech law happens to be superior law and the law which forbids it is secondary. Legally, here it must be understood that in a just contest between the two, superior law always prevails over secondary law. That aspect to the administration of justice is simply mandatory!

And yet in Canada that has not been the case at all. To my knowledge, at no time has there ever been a contest case between people relying on the right of superior law on the issue of free speech where the secondary law of Section 319 has not trounced superior law via the vehicle of judges’ and intimidated jurors’ rulings. Is it fear, or simply unprofessional political conduct whereby judges and jurors are persuaded to abandon a simple legal situation in the arena of free speech?

More on that in Part Two.


Bill Of Rights, Canadian Bill Of Rights, Canadian Law, Cc3192, Free Speech, Government Of Canada, Hate Crimes, Hate Laws, Hate Mongers, Hate Speech, Illusion Of Hate, 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


author avatar Sean_Victorydawn
8th Oct 2016 (#)

Thank you for vindicating the truth. In Ottawa, I am a small business owner in a promising field, and I am suffering big time due to the unpractical jurisdiction in Ontario. I stopped doing local business and moved 100% to international treaties between UK and US. It's so sad Canada cannot be transparent any more in protecting business law, like the other countries around us.

Reply to this comment

author avatar Reni Sentana-Ries
17th Oct 2016 (#)

I'm sorry to hear, Sean, that you also have sorely been affected by Canadian stupid laws. :(

Reply to this comment

Add a comment
Can't login?