5 July 2012

Paulie Shows His Hand on Section 319

Well, it's not as if we didn't know this already.

When the Conservatives voted to remove Sec. 13 from the Human Rights Act, they justified it in part because of the existence of Section 319 of the Criminal Code (in layman's terms, the hate crimes law) which they claimed was more appropriate when dealing withe issue of extremist rhetoric. They even stated they planned on strengthening the existing legislation.

All this might be true, but Paulie has a new target in his sites:

Well we're not sure how a "defence of truth" includes the demonization of Jews and other minorities, but then we're normal, rational, human beings.

But we digress...

After the self-congratulatory ego stroking, Paulie does get to the point in trying to justify why Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code now needs to be abolished, and in doing so... wait, we know this is going to be shocking.... Paulie is more than a bit disingenuous.

We know! We were shocked as well!

Essentially it's the old, "hurt feelings" argument that Paulie and his cohorts have been claiming is the reasoning behind both Sec. 13 of the CHRA and Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. In essence, he's saying the reason why these statutes were enacted was because the "commie" Canadian government didn't want "protected groups" feeling bad about themselves should they be criticized.

Nice and sterile that word, "criticized" is, eh? It sounds much better than the words and statements that are actually used to attack groups and individuals, such as "the Jews are vermin who should be exterminated" or that Hitler was nicer to the Jews than they deserved.

But back to the point. Although we know our readers don't need to be told why Sec. 319 exists, we decided to discuss it anyways.

The law doesn't exist so that groups and individuals will not have their, "feelings hurt." Sticks and stones, right?

The laws do exist because of those sticks and stones.

For a little over a year, this government-controlled radio station in Rwanda dehumanized the Tutsi minority. They were called cockroaches and accused of being alien entities that didn't belong in the country. Hutus were urged to purchase weapons and ammunition, claiming the Tutsi's were going to start killing them. When the genocide began, Hutus were told to kill their neighbors.

Ultimately, 50,000 deaths could be linked to this hate speech.

And if this seems extreme, we might introduce you to someone a little closer to home.

Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the Creativity Movement, engaged in a spree killing campaign that left two people dead and several people injured due in large part to the teachings of Matt Hale.

Prior to this, Smith distributed hate propaganda on the campus of the university he was attending which attacked Jews and other minorities.

He had this to say about that hate literature:

People call our literature hate literature, but all it really is is the truth that reflects on the minority as negatively, he said.

Sound familiar?

Last week, Mr. Tremaine won the limited right to go back on Stormfront where he posted over 3,000 articles in 2004-2005 under the moniker "Mathdoktor99". He can seek material pertinent to about 50 posts which are alleged to promote hate against no fewer than 11 privileged groups. This material would be toward the defence of truth. --- Paul Fromm

Two examples. We could fill this blog with other examples.

The Criminal Code statute isn't there to protect people from feeling bad about themselves.

It's there to protect people from being assaulted by those who are influenced by the hateful rhetoric of those who lead them.

Paulie knows this to, which should give you, our dear reader, a little more insight into the man and his values.


Harry Abrams said...

I have to take a bit of issue with all the coverage (entertaining as it is) that is given here to the ever pathetic Fromm character. If you really MUST mention this nincompoop over and over, please couple it with the fact that he was fully disgraced as a school teacher, AND had his teaching license revoked years ago for conduct unbecoming to his former profession.

Now having gotten that out of the way, this is the decision that old Doug Christie wants to have another go at all these years later.

It's the Keegstra Supreme Court decision. http://scc.lexum.org/en/1990/1990scr3-697/1990scr3-697.html

Bit of what I would call "ambulance chasing" to try and challenge its relevance to internet communications today, but I somehow don't think that the Supreme Court is likely to entertain anything like that anytime soon.
The Criminal Code Sections 318 & 319 do indeed have a whole different set of teeth than the civil provisions remedying incitement to hatred, but all these nice people have laboured and lobbied so long and hard for enforcement to only be applicable to the criminal standard, so this is what we all get.

Real handcuffs and real jail bars.

I'm good with that.

Nosferatu200 said...

You're absolutely right Harry. We should be reminding our readers that Paulie is indeed a former teacher fired in disgrace and later having his certification revoked. Every time. :)

Hey, when Sec. 13 was challenged initially, we did suggest that those who opposed should be careful what they wished for. It's not as we all didn't warn them, eh?

No doubt, these comments will now be appearing on Free Dominion in 5,