[BartSimpson]

Keegstra absolutely deserved to be fired from his post. He absolutely did not deserve to be imprisoned.

[Zipperfish]

I don't agree with the Suprememe Court decision. At least in that excerpt, they completely fail to even mention Constitutional freedom of speech. I agree that there is clearly a "rational connection" between hate propaganda and protecting minroity groups. Howevere, at least in my opinon, the bar to infringing freedom of speech must lay higher than merely a "rational connecton." I think the danger any speech or expression imposes must be more imminent than that. I"m sure the SCC will take my opinions into account before they render their next decision.

[Lemmy]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Abetting is cheering on a crime, conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime, neither of which applies here.

Not quite. Abetting is encouraging a crime, which is essentially what hate crimes are. Abetting assault, arson, whatever, is exactly what a hate crime is, making the hate laws completely redundant. Conspiracy is planning a crime. An individual can conspire without any co-conspirators, so no agreement is necessary.

[Dayseed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Not quite. Abetting is encouraging a crime, which is essentially what hate crimes are.

If you're slicing between encouraging a crime and cheering on a crime, you're making a distinction without a difference. The wilful promotion of hatred is what S. 319 encompasses, not merely encouraging another crime.

$1:

Abetting assault, arson, whatever, is exactly what a hate crime is, making the hate laws completely redundant.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're not on solid ground here at all. A "hate" crime in Canada is essentially an aggravating sentencing factor. Aside from S. 318 & 319, there aren't any "hate crimes" in the Criminal Code. Even those two don't encompass what I think you're aiming at which is something like burning down a building for shits and giggles versus burning down a building because black people live there. Both are arson, but the motivation behind the latter would incur a harsher sentence. Your criminal record wouldn't read "Hate Arson".

$1:

Conspiracy is planning a crime. An individual can conspire without any co-conspirators, so no agreement is necessary.

No, no, no a thousand times no, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. A conspiracy as defined in S. 465 always encompasses a person who conspires with any one. The conspiracy is the agreement to commit a particular crime; evidence is either evidence of the agreement or the implied agreement as adduced from actions taken by the conspirator.

Moreover, the crime doesn't even apply if a person conspires with an undercover officer to commit a crime since the undercover officer never intended to commit the crime. They therefore never made a meaningful agreement which nullifies S. 465.

Planning a crime is a very grey area. If you and your friends are sitting around a campfire spitballing how to commit the perfect murder, you're not conspiring a la S. 465(1)(a) simply by the content. If you're spitballing, and your crazy friend Ed actually goes through with it, you haven't counselled him to commit a crime; the Crown would have to prove that your intention in informing Ed was to enable Ed to commit the crime...even if Ed deviates from your plan by a smidgeon.

But what if you describe the perfect murder gun to Ed? How much more culpable are you if you tell him you happen to own such a gun...and you keep it at your lakehouse? What if you tell him that Brenda will divorce him and take all his assets, but a dead Brenda gets buried? At some point, you'll tip the scales towards being an accessory by planning with Ed, assisting Ed and telling him he'll feel much better after the murder.

But you didn't conspire with him because you never agreed to commit the murder with him.

Understand the difference? That's why there are so many variations on laws in the Criminal Code; they encompass different scenarios.

Which is why S. 318 and S. 319 exist. They criminalize the wilful promotion of hatred, which is an acceptable infringement of your rights according to the Supreme Court.

[Lemmy]

Dayseed Dayseed:

If you're slicing between encouraging a crime and cheering on a crime, you're making a distinction without a difference. The wilful promotion of hatred is what S. 319 encompasses, not merely encouraging another crime.

You were the one making the distinction when you said abetting was "cheering on a crime". That implied that abetting could only take place when a crime was already in progress and that's incorrect. Yes 319 is the promotion of hatred, but it's redundant because hatred is just hatred until it's acted upon and, at that point, it becomes abetting something else already listed elsewhere in the Code.

$1:

If I'm reading you correctly, you're not on solid ground here at all. A "hate" crime in Canada is essentially an aggravating sentencing factor. Aside from S. 318 & 319, there aren't any "hate crimes" in the Criminal Code. Even those two don't encompass what I think you're aiming at which is something like burning down a building for shits and giggles versus burning down a building because black people live there. Both are arson, but the motivation behind the latter would incur a harsher sentence. Your criminal record wouldn't read "Hate Arson".

No, you're not reading me correctly. All I'm saying is that 319 is redundant to other offenses already in the code.

Dayseed Dayseed:

No, no, no a thousand times no, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. A conspiracy as defined in S. 465 always encompasses a person who conspires with any one. The conspiracy is the agreement to commit a particular crime; evidence is either evidence of the agreement or the implied agreement as adduced from actions taken by the conspirator.

Moreover, the crime doesn't even apply if a person conspires with an undercover officer to commit a crime since the undercover officer never intended to commit the crime. They therefore never made a meaningful agreement which nullifies S. 465.

Planning a crime is a very grey area. If you and your friends are sitting around a campfire spitballing how to commit the perfect murder, you're not conspiring a la S. 465(1)(a) simply by the content. If you're spitballing, and your crazy friend Ed actually goes through with it, you haven't counselled him to commit a crime; the Crown would have to prove that your intention in informing Ed was to enable Ed to commit the crime...even if Ed deviates from your plan by a smidgeon.

But what if you describe the perfect murder gun to Ed? How much more culpable are you if you tell him you happen to own such a gun...and you keep it at your lakehouse? What if you tell him that Brenda will divorce him and take all his assets, but a dead Brenda gets buried? At some point, you'll tip the scales towards being an accessory by planning with Ed, assisting Ed and telling him he'll feel much better after the murder.

But you didn't conspire with him because you never agreed to commit the murder with him.

Understand the difference? That's why there are so many variations on laws in the Criminal Code; they encompass different scenarios.

You're not following along. Conspiracy is an incomplete offense. Serious intention to commit a crime is an offense, whether followed through upon or not, with or without a co-conspirator. That's completely different from two people waxing hypothetical about the perfect crime. And my original contention was that we don't need to criminalize hate speech because we already have laws prohibiting the encouragement of crimes and conspiracy to commit crimes.

Dayseed Dayseed:

Which is why S. 318 and S. 319 exist. They criminalize the wilful promotion of hatred, which is an acceptable infringement of your rights according to the Supreme Court.

Yes, and I'm suggesting that there's no reason for such an offense since until such beliefs translate into action, they are victimless crimes that OUGHT to be free speech. We're talking about two different things here: the way they are and the way I'm suggesting they ought to be.

[Dayseed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You were the one making the distinction when you said abetting was "cheering on a crime". That implied that abetting could only take place when a crime was already in progress and that's incorrect. Yes 319 is the promotion of hatred, but it's redundant because hatred is just hatred until it's acted upon and, at that point, it becomes abetting something else already listed elsewhere in the Code.

Then its not redundant; it encompasses something different, which is the promotion of hatred. You don't like the crime and believe its an infringement on S. 2 of the Charter; fair enough, you're not alone and the dissenting opinion in R v. Keegstra is very well written and supportive of your position. But S. 319 is not a glorified abetment.

$1:

No, you're not reading me correctly. All I'm saying is that 319 is redundant to other offenses already in the code.

Well no its not. See above. Its a separate offence.

$1:

You're not following along. Conspiracy is an incomplete offense.

Okay, you're going to have to explain what an "incomplete offence" is and what legal authority you find that under. I'll stop you short if you're going to allude that conspiracy is the same as attempt. It's not.

$1:

Serious intention to commit a crime is an offense, whether followed through upon or not, with or without a co-conspirator.

Quote the section. I'd like to read where you got that since intention without action is only half of the fundamental elements of an offence; the mens rea lacking the actus reus. Have you read Section 465 of the Criminal Code? It may be enlightening.

$1:

That's completely different from two people waxing hypothetical about the perfect crime.

Agreed. That's why I introduced it to differentiate what conspiracy, the agreement to commit a crime and being an accessory to a crime, plus elements of what the Crown would have to adduce at trial. And there's always prosecutorial discretion. Somebody yelling "Kick his ass, Sea Bass" at a bar fight probably isn't going to be prosecuted, despite abetting an assault.

$1:

And my original contention was that we don't need to criminalize hate speech because we already have laws prohibiting the encouragement of crimes and conspiracy to commit crimes.

Your contention is factually wrong. However, scrubbing S. 319 from the books does merit some consideration. But, as I said before, it encompasses a separate meaning from other crimes AND when prosecuted, has been for egregious offences.

$1:

Yes, and I'm suggesting that there's no reason for such an offense since until such beliefs translate into action, they are victimless crimes that OUGHT to be free speech. We're talking about two different things here: the way they are and the way I'm suggesting they ought to be.

Fair enough. However, do you think Canada is well served by having people in the public square demanding lynchings of black people because they're polluting the white race? I support suppression of such speech. Do you draw any distinction between a foreseeable outcome and an actual outcome?

[Lemmy]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Okay, you're going to have to explain what an "incomplete offence" is and what legal authority you find that under. I'll stop you short if you're going to allude that conspiracy is the same as attempt. It's not.

Incomplete offenses are offenses that are incomplete. They are attempt, aid, abet, conspiracy and accessory after the fact. They require another part of the criminal code for conviction (ie, conspiracy to commit _____, etc).

Dayseed Dayseed:

Your contention is factually wrong. However, scrubbing S. 319 from the books does merit some consideration. But, as I said before, it encompasses a separate meaning from other crimes AND when prosecuted, has been for egregious offences.

You're not getting it. We could pass a law tomorrow that criminalizes burning houses as a separate offense from other types of arson, but that doesn't make such a law any less redundant just because it has a separate, unique actual reus.

Dayseed Dayseed:

Fair enough. However, do you think Canada is well served by having people in the public square demanding lynchings of black people because they're polluting the white race? I support suppression of such speech. Do you draw any distinction between a foreseeable outcome and an actual outcome?

The foreseeable outcome of allowing someone to publicly demand the lynching of black people would be the public beating of said persons by black people. Provocation should be a legal defense to assaults committed against hate speakers.

[Dayseed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Incomplete offenses are offenses that are incomplete. They are attempt, aid, abet, conspiracy and accessory after the fact. They require another part of the criminal code for conviction (ie, conspiracy to commit _____, etc).

Firstly, thank you for dropping your notion that conspiracy is planning a crime when it is the agreement to commit a crime.

Secondly, you've pulled a legal definition out of thin-air and show a gross misunderstanding of the law. They don't require another part of the Criminal Code; they are themselves the offence. The crime of aiding an assault isn't dependent upon assault; the crime is aiding another person in the commission of a crime, which happens to be assault. IF that person doesn't end up completing the assault, you'd still be guilty of aiding it.

In your definition, S. 348, break and enter, is an "incomplete offence" because it is dependent upon an offence being committed inside the house.

I think you need to start quoting sections of the Criminal Code to support your assertions. I think you're arguing from your gut sense of the Criminal Code, but it's just plain wrong.

$1:

You're not getting it. We could pass a law tomorrow that criminalizes burning houses as a separate offense from other types of arson, but that doesn't make such a law any less redundant just because it has a separate, unique actual reus.

Firstly, I disagree with your point that they are redundant. Canada has a separate crime for joyriding; theft of a motor vehicle. Even though S. 322 covers it, S. 335 is separate because it is punishable on summary conviction rather than possibly by indictment as per S. 322. It also has a separate crime for possession of a device capable of theft of telecommunication service; which encompasses a separate idea from the actual theft of the telecommunication service.

Secondly, arson has been divided into S. 433 and 434. The act of burning something which had reckless disregard for life is a separate offence from simply damaging property by fire. Is the crime of arson redundant because mischief (S. 430) specifically addresses damage to property?

Thirdly, the idea for separate crimes is because they encompass different elements that are litigated differently.

Fourthly, actus, not actual.

$1:

The foreseeable outcome of allowing someone to publicly demand the lynching of black people would be the public beating of said persons by black people. Provocation should be a legal defense to assaults committed against hate speakers.

That nicely sidesteps the question of: Is Canada better served by allowing public demonstrations of lynching demands against black people, whether or not they righteously beat the racist idiots demanding it?

Provocation shouldn't be a legal defense; nobody has the right to take the law unto themselves and administer punishments. You envision a world where the beater correctly hears first hand hate from the beatee. In the world of the internet, somebody simply has to state that Ed said "murder all Jews" which would provoke Johan to hit Ed in the head with a pipe. Would Johan have a defense of provocation according to you?

Also, I asked do you draw a distinction between a foreseeable outcome and an actual outcome?

I chose the lynching example because there is a distinction of action for S. 319 and S. 21. S. 319 is "you should hate black people" and S. 21 is "you should lynch them". They're separate ideas and deserve separate crimes.

Your point should be that S. 319 is an infringement on S. 2, rather than unnecessary because it is encompassed by S. 21, which is factually wrong.

[Lemmy]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Secondly, you've pulled a legal definition out of thin-air

All About Law, 6th edition, Terry Murphy. And you're wrong, incomplete offenses do require another part of the criminal code. You can't be charged with attempting to do something that isn't listed as an offense somewhere else in the criminal code (or other source of criminal law).

Day seed Day seed:

Fourthly, actus, not actual.

Now you're going to criticize me for the autocorrect feature on my tablet, eh? Your intent is clearly to nitpick, not discuss. Do me the courtesy of presuming that I don't need clarification of the differences between statutes, the concept of foreseeability, etc. You're dying to give a lesson I don't need .

[Dayseed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

All About Law, 6th edition, Terry Murphy. And you're wrong, incomplete offenses do require another part of the criminal code. You can't be charged with attempting to do something that isn't listed as an offense somewhere else in the criminal code (or other source of criminal law).

You'll have to quote exactly what Mr. Murphy has written; I don't think you're communicating it well enough at all.

$1:

Now you're going to criticize me for the autocorrect feature on my tablet, eh? Your intent is clearly to nitpick, not discuss. Do me the courtesy of presuming that I don't need clarification of the differences between statutes, the concept of foreseeability, etc. You're dying to give a lesson I don't need .

My intent is to nitpick? You have brutally mangled legal concepts, including claiming that conspiracy is planning a crime solo, claimed "serious intention" is a crime yet aiding a crime is dependent upon another crime? Say whaaaa?

These are glaring errors and represent a gross misunderstanding of the law which makes me think you're battling with Google-Fu. While it may be an autocorrect feature of your tablet, you didn't pick up on it and there's nothing you've written to bolster it as an innocent mistake. Now I presume that you're casting about looking to support your gut feeling of the law.

I write these things not necessarily so much to educate you, but to bring about an awareness to the board of what the law actually is; that's why I quote from statutes and decisions.

Once we have the law down, we can begin to move on to more theoretical discussions of the law, including what ought to be.

I also wonder about your comprehension skills; you've avoided numerous times now answering if Canada is better served by racists openly crying for lynchings in the public square and whether or not those lynchings need to be actual or foreseeable. I didn't ask if you knew the difference between the two, I asked how much of a difference it made to you in the scenario.

My prediction? You'll skip that question again, even though it goes to the heart of your assertion that S. 319 is unnecessary.

[Dayseed]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Keegstra absolutely deserved to be fired from his post. He absolutely did not deserve to be imprisoned.

Sorry Bart, I missed this. Keegstra wasn't imprisoned. He was fined, given probation and forced to do community service.

[Lemmy]

Dayseed Dayseed:

You'll have to quote exactly what Mr. Murphy has written; I don't think you're communicating it well enough at all.

Attempt, aid, abet, conspiracy and accessory after the fact are incomplete offenses, termed as such in his book. Is that clear enough?

Dayseed Dayseed:

My intent is to nitpick? You have brutally mangled legal concepts, including claiming that conspiracy is planning a crime solo, claimed "serious intention" is a crime yet aiding a crime is dependent upon another crime? Say whaaaa?

You mangled the concept of abet. Aiding a crime is dependent on another crime, the one being aided in. You want me to believe you have a grasp of the law when you don't get this simple notion? Can I be charged with aiding you in changing a tire or building an ice cream cone? No, because those are not offenses. I can only aid, criminally, in the commission of criminal acts.

Day seed Day seed:

These are glaring errors and represent a gross misunderstanding of the law which makes me think you're battling with Google-Fu. While it may be an autocorrect feature of your tablet, you didn't pick up on it and there's nothing you've written to bolster it as an innocent mistake. Now I presume that you're casting about looking to support your gut feeling of the law.

I made one error on conspiracy. You've made several. Your inability to understand abet or the notion that aiding someone isn't criminal if what you're aiding them in isn't, plus the fact that you're unfamiliar with the term "incomplete offense" tells me that you're the one googling away to cover your ignorance.

Dayseed Dayseed:

I write these things not necessarily so much to educate you, but to bring about an awareness to the board of what the law actually is; that's why I quote from statutes and decisions.

Once we have the law down, we can begin to move on to more theoretical discussions of the law, including what ought to be.

I also wonder about your comprehension skills; you've avoided numerous times now answering if Canada is better served by racists openly crying for lynchings in the public square and whether or not those lynchings need to be actual or foreseeable. I didn't ask if you knew the difference between the two, I asked how much of a difference it made to you in the scenario.

My prediction? You'll skip that question again, even though it goes to the heart of your assertion that S. 319 is unnecessary.

We clearly do not have the law down. I do. My original assertion was that we do not need hate legislation because up to the point where hate speech becomes abetting other offenses, such speech should, IMO, be protected on constitutional grounds. If my speech has a foreseeable outcome of violence, property damage, etc, then my speech is abetting some other offense, which means the hate speech laws are redundant. Disagree if you will.

[Dayseed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Attempt, aid, abet, conspiracy and accessory after the fact are incomplete offenses, termed as such in his book. Is that clear enough?

Not coming from you. You've convinced me you're an idiot and I don't trust that you're accurately relaying what he wrote.

$1:

You mangled the concept of abet.

This is evidence of your idiocy. I colloquially stated abetting is "cheering on a crime." You said no, its encouraging one. That's "mangling"? Do you even know what mangling means?

$1:

Aiding a crime is dependent on another crime, the one being aided in. You want me to believe you have a grasp of the law when you don't get this simple notion? Can I be charged with aiding you in changing a tire or building an ice cream cone? No, because those are not offenses. I can only aid, criminally, in the commission of criminal acts.

Hey genius, what you're trying to communicate is the term "substantive offence" because these delineate parties to the offence. Yes, there needs to be a substantive offense related to what you're aiding...but here's a quick question for you you fucking dolt, does there need to be a conviction on the substantive offense for the crime of aiding to be complete? If not, then your idea of "dependent" isn't so dependent?

Quit faking knowledge you don't have. You've been exposed.

$1:

I made one error on conspiracy. You've made several. Your inability to understand abet or the notion that aiding someone isn't criminal if what you're aiding them in isn't, plus the fact that you're unfamiliar with the term "incomplete offense" tells me that you're the one googling away to cover your ignorance.

No, you made a shitload of errors, you're just too stupid to realize it, despite having them pointed out to you.

You said conspiracy was planning a crime, which could be done solo. Reading the damn Criminal Code would have enlightened you on that. But facts be damned, you felt the need to be a public idiot.

You said "serious intention" was a crime, as though there were degrees of intention that were separately delineated somewhere in the Code.

You said splintering the crime of arson was redundant, yet didn't know that it had already been splintered because they cover different concepts.

You said S. 319 is redundant because aiding/abetting are crimes, yet failed to grasp the specific notion in S. 319 which is the promulgation of hate.

That's sort of central to the whole post. I know you missed it because you couldn't google it.

$1:

We clearly do not have the law down. I do. My original assertion was that we do not need hate legislation because up to the point where hate speech becomes abetting other offenses, such speech should, IMO, be protected on constitutional grounds. If my speech has a foreseeable outcome of violence, property damage, etc, then my speech is abetting some other offense, which means the hate speech laws are redundant. Disagree if you will.

I do disagree and have disagreed. You've repeated your point, but haven't explained it. Where you are flat out fucking wrong (again) is that you have to have a specific abetment to be considered a party to a particular offence. Yelling from the rooftops "somebody should commit a robbery" doesn't make you a party to a robbery committed thereafter.

Abetment occurs when a person has sufficient action to actively promote a specific crime. Encouraging a buddy to go out and rape a person could be considered abetment of sexual assault. However, simply yelling out "All women are horrible cock-teases that need to be taught a lesson" doesn't satisfy the mens rea of abetting sexual assault because the rapist and the abettor don't necessarily desire the same unlawful outcome.

This isn't me making shit up, this is from R v. Hibbert, which maybe you should have read before trundling down this path.

In the case-law I quoted, especially R v. Keegstra, you'll note that the accused promulgated hate rather than counselled on any particular crime. Its that promulgation which is criminalized.

It's not redundant. You're simply factually wrong.

I've tried to get you to move off this dumb-ass assertion and move towards whether or not that sort of speech ought to be constitutionally protected because there are damn good arguments to be made that S. 319 is too infringing on S. 2 freedoms, but you won't do it.

In short, it's because you're an idiot.

Feel free to have the last word.

[Public_Domain]

"idiot", "idiocy", "fucking dolt", "faking knowledge", "stupid", "public idiot", "you couldn't google it", "fucking wrong (again)", "trundling", "dumb-ass", "idiot"

yet...

...?

[Lemmy]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Feel free to have the last word"

Wow, that was a lot of hostility.