"Money for Nothing" Banned in Canada

[Anonymous]

Google does not make you an expert on Canadian law, and if Canada's biggest crime is banning a Dire Straights song, I'm proud to call myself Canadian.

When people ask me about the difference between Canada and the US, I always say the same thing. In Canada, it's about peacekeeping, not policing. We don't stick our noses in other people's business.

I'm done with this post, but happy you took so much time out of your day to read up on Canada- it's a beautiful place, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google does not make you an expert on Canadian law, and if Canada's biggest crime is banning a Dire Straights song, I'm proud to call myself Canadian.

When people ask me about the difference between Canada and the US, I always say the same thing. In Canada, it's about peacekeeping, not policing. We don't stick our noses in other people's business.

I'm done with this post, but happy you took so much time out of your day to read up on Canada- it's a beautiful place, isn't it?

True, but I can read the law and see that it requires willful intent.

Canada is a beautiful place. I worked there for many years up at Bell Canada in Toronto and Montreal. Unfortunately, not every Canadian lives up to the stereotype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Canada sounds better and better. Bet they'd know what to do with the author who wrote the Guide on how to Molest Little Kids....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Canada sounds better and better. Bet they'd know what to do with the author who wrote the Guide on how to Molest Little Kids....

Well, so do we. The guy has been arrested.

[Anonymous]

You really don't know what you're talking abou, even about US laws. The only reason he was arrested is because Florida is the only state with obscenity laws, and they got him to mail the book to Florida.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really don't know what you're talking abou, even about US laws. The only reason he was arrested is because Florida is the only state with obscenity laws, and they got him to mail the book to Florida.

It's really funny that you said that Florida is the only state with obscenity laws. And yet, here they are:

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/index.htm?olrIndex.htm

[Anonymous]

This is the last time i'm posting here, because debating with you is like talking to a house plant.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/12/phillip_r_greaves_ii_author_of.php

Here is an except:

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd tells CFN 13 that his deputies were able to arrest him in Colorado under Florida statutes, because it's the only state where obscenity laws are such that even writing about pedophilia as a positive activity is a crime--a felony, actually.

"He wrote this book specifically to teach people how to molest and rape children,'' Judd said. "You cannot engage in or depict children in a harmful light. There may be nothing the other 49 states can do but there is something Florida can do. We can prosecute (Phillip Greaves) for this manifesto.''

Enjoy your Sunday, I have better thing to do with my time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the last time i'm posting here, because debating with you is like talking to a house plant.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/12/phillip_r_greaves_ii_author_of.php

Here is an except:

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd tells CFN 13 that his deputies were able to arrest him in Colorado under Florida statutes, because it's the only state where obscenity laws are such that even writing about pedophilia as a positive activity is a crime--a felony, actually.

"He wrote this book specifically to teach people how to molest and rape children,'' Judd said. "You cannot engage in or depict children in a harmful light. There may be nothing the other 49 states can do but there is something Florida can do. We can prosecute (Phillip Greaves) for this manifesto.''

Enjoy your Sunday, I have better thing to do with my time.

That was a statement made by the Polk County sheriff. But Florida is not the only state that covers written depictions of a sexual nature under obscenity laws.

[Anonymous]

You're beating a dead horse, PP.

You lose.

[Anonymous]

The greatest thing about Canada is that it is a huge country and the people know that the U.S. will protect their childish and weak souls if they were ever attacked. So they try to pretend that squishy socialism works while they resent the U.S for being so powerful. Meanwhile they pay nothing for their useless armed forces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The greatest thing about Canada is that it is a huge country and the people know that the U.S. will protect their childish and weak souls if they were ever attacked. So they try to pretend that squishy socialism works while they resent the U.S for being so powerful. Meanwhile they pay nothing for their useless armed forces.

Find me a country that wants to attack Canada, and your arguement will make sense, you are ridiculous. We don't need an armed force, we are a nation of peacekeeping.

[Anonymous]

Poor weak Canada...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/25/news/economy/Canada_economy_G20.fortune/index.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're beating a dead horse, PP.

You lose.

I thought you were signing off. And yet here you are. Still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The greatest thing about Canada is that it is a huge country and the people know that the U.S. will protect their childish and weak souls if they were ever attacked. So they try to pretend that squishy socialism works while they resent the U.S for being so powerful. Meanwhile they pay nothing for their useless armed forces.

Find me a country that wants to attack Canada, and your arguement will make sense, you are ridiculous. We don't need an armed force, we are a nation of peacekeeping.

I am not sure how any of this relates to free speech issues.