Richard Warman on The New Section 13

 Pretty similar to the old Section 13, with a few twists, is the gist of it.  I am just summarizing, so go look at the stuff through the link.  Richard doesn't do much in the way of archiving:

1. It’s basically the same thing as the old s. 13 but explicitly doesn’t apply to social media companies...

2. The Bill provides the Commission with the ability to protect anonymity of a complainant – s. 40(8)...

3. Provides explicit power to dismiss a complaint as vexatious if there is no indication of hate speech in the material complained of...

4. Most of the remedies the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can grant if a complaint relating to online hate is upheld remain the same (a permanent injunction and possible damages if someone is specifically targeted by the online hate). The only change is the potential penalty clause has been increased from $10,000 to $50,000...

5. The Tribunal can now order costs against a party for an abuse of process in relation to the Tribunal inquiry – see s. 53(2)...

I am looking forward this next go round.  Pretty much all of the specific claims against the old Section 13 were proven false and often defamatory of one party or another.  It will be difficult for the CPC or their surrogates to mount any attack against the new version that moves beyond broad, vague claims.  

Your Daily Nazi: Important News On Your Ward News

I wrote last year:

So there's an T.O. East End Newspaper called Your Ward News.  From what I gather its mostly a direct mail affair; the publisher, a guy named Leroy St. Germaine, has Canada Post deliver it to folks down in Ward 31 (The Beaches).  It has apparently always been a bit flaky/racist, but the last couple of issues have seen a guy named James Sears gradually taking over, until recently he was appointed "Editor in Chief". And he has taken the publication "Full Nazi": articles promoting holocaust denial by old Heritage Front members; articles praising Adolf Hitler; articles promoting "white pride". The works.

Since then various people have taken various actions to make these guys stop publishing or get Canada Post to stop delivering them.  For example, local businesses advertising in the paper were contacted and asked to pull their classifieds.  This worked, more or less;  Sold space within the publication has declined.  But Your Ward has continued, and Canada Post has continued to distribute it.

Last week Canadian Civil Rights lawyer Richard Warman filed a human rights complaint against Canada Post, supported by numerous other luminaries.   You can find the actual paperwork at WK's place through the last link.  My favorite bit from it is:

It looks better if you click on the image, I think.

Anyway, this may be an interesting lesson in how to file this kind of complaint after the repeal of Section 13 of the CHRA.  Lets do a quick walk-through of the sections invoked.

Section 5:

5 It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

This is invoked, as I understand it, to cover the discriminatory treatment of members of the public who are forced to receive the hate mail in question.

Section 7:

7 It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.


1976-77, c. 33, s. 7; 1980-81-82-83, c. 143, s. 3(F).

This suggests an infringement on the rights of the letter carriers forced to deliver the hate-mail.  It's worth noting that CUPW supports Warman's complaint.

Sections 12 & 14:

12 It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or

(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 12; 1980-81-82-83, c. 143, s. 6.

&:

14 (1) It is a discriminatory practice,

(a) in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public,

(b) in the provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation, or

(c) in matters related to employment,

to harass an individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

12 concerns discriminatory notices.  If you are willing to publish/distribute this level of anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-whatever hate, its basically indicating to the people you deliver it to that you will likely discriminate and that they should too.

And, again, he various subsections of 14 cover discriminating against those members of the public who receive and must deliver this hate literature.

*

So it will be interesting to see how this all plays out, in the absence of the now repealed Section 13 of the CHRA.  Richard does not instigate frivolous complaints.  As for Your Ward, finding the on-line version is easy enough if you want to take a look.

I imagine getting it delivered to your mailbox is like recieving uncovered, unsolicited pornography (indeed some of the images in the publication shade towards porn).  Its basically a sick joke being played by a few white supremicists on the folks down in The Beaches.  Hopefully this will put an end to it.

Ezzrata: When Ezra Levant Was Young And Sue-y

Someone has posted a trove of legal documents from Ezra Levant's past, related to a libel case he brought against the University of Calgary student newspaper, back in the day.  Human rights lawyer Richard Warman has posted some commentary re this case on his website.  Here I'm just copping my favorite bits:

– 28 April 1993 – Ezra Levant swears an affidavit in which he says a Gauntlet reporter named Arnold Nowicki called him names in the University of Calgary bookstore, that “the said remarks can cause irreparable damage to the Plaintiffs’ reputations” given the comments were in a public place, and that the Plaintiffs therefore needed an injunction against Arnold Nowicki and everyone at the Gauntlet from “making any comment about the Plaintiffs”. Ezra Levant says Arnold Nowicki called him the following names:

low lifes

assholes

bullshits

that we get kicks out of intimidating people

nasty

motivated by revenge

that we beat up on people

– 3 May 1993 – Ezra Levant obtains a complete injunction on an ex-parte, emergency basis to prevent any Gauntlet staff member from making “any comment or statement about the Plaintiffs or any of them.”

There's more through the link, and other edifying material on various topics.  You may judge how this effects Ezra's status as a free speech warrior.

Help Out With Dr. Dawg's Legal Bill

Richard Warman has launched an Indiegogo campaign to help pay some of the legal expenses Dr. Dawg incurred during his legal battle with the Fourniers and others at FreeDominion.  You can find out more about it here.  They've collected about $400 in a couple of hours.  And I too will be donating $.  Very soon.  As soon as we pay for my dear mother's eye.  She threw it at dad and it broke against his head.

As for the Dawg's case, it's got even the lawyers confused.  Richard says:

In the weird world of libel law, the judge found that John had been defamed, but that because John had supported basic legal rights for child soldier Omar Khadr, the comment that John was a supporter of the Taliban was 'fair comment' and therefore legally okay.

As for me,  my understanding is that  a defamatory statement states a false fact and therefore cannot support an opinion protected by fair comment. The judgement in this case says both that the statement was defamatory AND that it was protected by fair comment, which sounds contradictory.

So I don't get it.

New Tory Hate Speech Laws? Richard Warman On Government's New Anti-Terror Initiatives

So I read this this morning:

OTTAWA — The Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts online.

There is frustration in government, and among law enforcement agencies, that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas and who may pose a threat to public safety, one Conservative MP said. “Do we need new offences? If so which?”

Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.

I emailed Richard Warman, an expert the legal status of on-line hate-speech, and he was kind enough to offer these brief comments:

Extreme online hate posts that target groups or justify violence based on their religion, race, or nationality were illegal under s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Conservative Party MPs voted unanimously to repeal s. 13 in June of 2012.  The Conservatives destroyed the only effective legal protection against online hate speech.  Conservative MP Brian Storseth described himself as "ecstatic".  Jonathan Kay of the National Post said "good riddance".

It was the Conservatives who dismantled the law that protected Canadians from online terror.

It would be beyond ironic if the Tories were to resurrect, or create something indistinguishable from, the law they spent so many years trying to get rid of.

Your Daily Nazi: Robert Mccorkill Can't Give His Estate To Nazis

He was the Canadian chemist who wanted to will his collection of ancient coins and other artifacts to The National Alliance, an american Neo-Nazi group.  Richard Warman,  B'nai Brith, and Isabelle Rose Mccorkill teamed up to see if they could put a stop to it.  Today, the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench issued their ruling.  Richard writes of it:

 At paragraph 76, Justice Grant continues his condemnation of the National Alliance in no uncertain terms – “The evidence before the court convinces me that in the case of the NA [National Alliance] the purpose for which it exists is to promote white supremacy through the dissemination of propaganda which incites hatred of various identifiable groups which they deem to be non-white and therefore unworthy. These purposes and the means they advocate to achieve them are criminal in Canada and that is what makes this bequest repugnant.”

I think that Justice Grant’s collective use of provincial human rights law, federal criminal law, and Canada’s obligations under numerous international treaties to block the bequest to the National Alliance shows on how many levels it was contrary to public policy. The welcome intervention of the Attorney-General of New Brunswick through counsel Richard Williams to stop the bequest cleary carried great weight with the court on this issue and they deserve a great vote of thanks for their efforts to defend the public interest.

The full decision, which I have not read yet, can be found here.  When I have I might do another post. Congrats to Richard and everyone else involved.

Your Daily Nazi: Nazi Treasure To Remain In Canada

...at least for now.

I've written about Robert McCorkell (or McCorkill) a few times.  He was a  Canadian chemist with White Nationalist leanings, and when he died he bequeathed  $1,000,000 in ancient gold coins and other valuables to the National Alliance, an American hate/terror group.  The collection itself is quite impressive: ancient Libyan, Roman, and Turkish artifacts.  It would be a pity if it wound up helping to refinance American Neo-Nazis.

Behind the scenes, a number of people (including BCLSB fave Richard Warman) have been working to stop this from happening.  And it looks like they've succeeded, at least temporarily. Yesterday afternoon an injunction was obtained blocking any distribution of Robert McCorkill's estate "until further order" from the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench.  You can see the whole thing here.  What happens now is anyone's guess.  It would be nice to see an academic institution of one sort or another adopt the collection.

Update:  CBC has a short piece up.  Apparently, the estate is worth about 1/4 of the original estimate (so: $250,000).

Your Daily Nazi: U.S. Nazis Inherit Canuck Gold?

An odd story, this.  A Canadian nutter has bequeathed  $1,000,000 in ancient gold coins and other valuables to the National Alliance, an American hate/terror group.  The Canadian government may be lobbied to stop the transfer.  And a few familiar figures are involved.  So: one to keep an eye on.

Your Daily Nazi: Late Coda To Hechme Case

Richard Warman is still having to tell people it's lies:

The "Hechme allegation" was one of the stranger incidents in The Speechy Wars--the epic political battle over section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act  that began in 2008 and still grinds on in the Senate.  Two  Neo-Nazis managed to convince a good portion of the Canadian media establishment that government employees hijacked the wifi network of one Nelly Hechme in order to spy on said Neo-Nazis.  it was a lunatic assertion, for many reasons, and the various investigations that followed cleared everyone involved.  More than once, in fact.

But here's the interesting thing. At the time Macleans Magazine was one of the prime media suckers.  They let Mark Steyn defame one of the government employees in question on their website; they let Steyn accuse this man by name (not Richard, incidentally) of criminal acts that he did not commit.  The story still appears on the Macleans website!   Now, the fellow didn't sue them because, I am told, he doesn't do that kind of thing.  But Macleans has been asked many times by bloggers like myself and, I think, Dr. Dawg, to pull down the defamatory piece, for decency's sake.  Clearly that kind of plea cuts no ice with the crew over there.

Warman On Whatcott

More through the links below.  I've discussed the Warman/Lemire case, referenced in point six, here and here:

2. This unanimous 6-judge decision upholds the 20+ year old majority decision from the Supreme Court in Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Taylor that Canadian human rights laws on hate propaganda are constitutional. The unanimous Whatcott decision now includes Chief Justice McLachlin who had previously led the minority 4 judge dissent in Taylor arguing the parallel federal human rights restriction on hate propaganda was unconstitutional. This is a tectonic judicial shift.

3. The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that existing hate speech case law has been following the earlier guidance from then Chief Justice Dickson in the Taylor case to deal only with the most extreme examples of hate speech. The SCC’s decision cites 4 of my cases with a particular emphasis on the ‘Hallmarks of Hate’ from the crackerjack Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Member Karen Jensen in the Warman v. Kouba decision which brought together a cogent analysis of the indicia that will demarcate legal expression from illegal hate speech.

An interesting point, here.  Now both the SCC and Richard Moon have exonerated the behavior of HRC employees.  That is to say, they have not pursued frivolous cases, only the worst examples.


4. The Supreme Court has affirmed the social destruction caused by hate speech & emphasizes “the added impact of the Internet”.

5. The decision largely cements the legal test in the Taylor case as the governing law for the indefinite future and I believe confirms the current de facto state of the law.

6. Warman & CHRC v. Lemire – Justice Mosley of the Federal Court ruled in October of 2012 that he was obliged to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance in Taylor and uphold the constitutionality of s. 13 (the federal human rights act provision prohibiting Internet hate speech in Canada). Marc Lemire’s frivolous appeal of that decision is done.

Marc Lemire: obscurity is calling you.  Time to return to it.

PS.  Bernie Farber has weighed-in.

Blazing Cat Fur Takes One In The Money Belt

From the website of Richard Warman:

Richard Warman is pleased to confirm settlement of his libel action against Arnie Lemaire (aka BlazingCatFur) on terms acceptable to the parties including removal of all material identified in the current statement of claim.

No details on cash amounts, but rumor has it Arnie and his wife Kathy Shaidle will be moving to new digs shortly.  The particulars of the defamation are the same as those in the Ezra Levant case, as those in the case of KKKate from SDA, as those in the case of the Fourniers from FreeD.  Expect all of them to go the same way when they eventually conclude.

Congrats To Richard Warman

On Saturday Ottawa Centre NDP MP Paul Dewar gave out two politically-charged [Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee] medals, one to outspoken defence analyst Steven Staples of the left-leaning Rideau Institute and another to former Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer Richard Warman, who has been vilified by some conservatives for his advocacy of hate-speech [prosecutions].

Meanwhile (from the article through the link) Torys are handing out these same medals to jail-birds. Apparently they hide them inside of cakes when they visit or, according to one rumor I've heard, they "hoop 'em".  Google that one.

 But why spoil the vibe with grotty details?  Good going Richard.  I hear those medals can get you into any disco in Ottawa.

PS. Reading it again, that last line is presumably a major bung-up on Glen McGregor's part.  Add "legislation" to the end of it and you're in the right ball-park.  And hopefully Mr. McGregor will make a quick change.  Otherwise the Leader-Post may inadvertently land in "get your balls sued off" territory.

PPS. Change made.  I've added the correction in square brackets.

Warman On Tremaine

Yesterday, the a Saskatchewan court threw out hate crime charges against National Socialist Party of Canada leader Terry Tremaine because his case took too long to get to trial. Richard Warman, who was instrumental in bringing the charges against Tremaine, commented as follows this morning on his website:

Is criminal law the answer to hate propaganda?

The Case of Terry Tremaine

Human Rights Complaint

In 2004, I filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that Terry Tremaine of Saskatchewan violated the anti-Internet hate messaging provision found in s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Tremaine first denied it was him, then said he was sorry and wouldn’t do it again, then claimed he wasn’t sorry, stood by his hate, and would keep doing it. In February of 2007, the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal upheld the complaintand ordered Tremaine to stop posting hate on the Internet.

Criminal Complaint

Given the expansion of his online hate propaganda activities, in August of 2006, I filed a complaint with the Regina Police that Terry Tremaine had violated s. 319 of the Criminal Code (willful promotion of hatred). The Canadian Jewish Congress filed a companion complaint in October 2006. Tremaine’s hate propaganda attacked largely the Jewish and black communities, but also the Aboriginal community and all non-whites. Material published by Tremaine to his website advocated genocide and ethnic cleansing.

In June of 2007, Regina Police executed a search warrant on Tremaine’s residence and in January of 2008, Tremaine was ultimately charged with what I understand to be 11 counts of willfully promoting hatred against a variety of groups based on religion, race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation.

Today, a judge in Saskatchewan stayed the charge ruling that the four years between Tremaine being charged and now violated his right to trial within a reasonable time.

Contempt of Court

Tremaine felt that he was above the law and deliberately disobeyed the 2007 order from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to stop posting Internet hate. As a result, contempt of court proceedings were commenced against him and in October 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal found Tremaine in contempt.

Tremaine’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for the week of 9 October in Vancouver.

Bottom line?

The anti-hate provisions of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are the only reason Tremaine has been held accountable for his poison calling for ethnic cleansing and publishing material advocating genocide (that continues to this day). The Conservative government is in the process of repealing s. 13 – they can prevaricate all they want, but the Conservatives are soft on hate crime, they betray the religious and minority communities they court, and their actions lend comfort and support to the politics of hate.

I would just note in regards to this last paragraph that the Harper Tories have promised to beef up  criminal code provisions against hate speech to replace powers lost in the repeal of S13.  They have done nothing thus far.

Far Right Head Exploding Device

Richard Warman watching Warren Kinsella's band play for the troops at Camp Pendleton‏.  I have warned Warren about playing that kind of music in front of men with guns, but its not my problem.  Also, congrats to Richard on his recent promotion.

Free Speech Throwdown: Warman Vs. Des Rosiers

I attended the Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech in Canada debate held by CIJA last night, pitting Richard Warman against Nathalie Des Rosiers of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.  I intended to live-blog the event with my new, incredibly sexxxy Acer Iconia, but the place didn't have wifi, so these remarks are just off the cuff.

And I won't say much about the debate itself, because frankly I'd heard most of it before.  RW was thorough and logical in his responses, and most of his jokes worked.  Des Rosiers was passionate, but I found her vague in places.  Her objection to S13 being that someone's right to free speech somewhere might get chilled somewhat some day...though she couldn't point to concrete instances of this actually having happened.  My impression is that the majority of the room was in Warman's corner.

I chatted briefly with Meir Weinstein, who is a civil enough fellow in person.  If I were to summarize his current views, it is that the white supremacist movement has been entirely supplanted by radical Islamists as a threat to the Canadian Jewish community (mostly by being a threat to Israel), and that really the latter group are the only ones worth pursuing these days.  I think he's dead wrong, or at least that it isn't an either/or (but not both!) proposition.  And I don't see why he would want to see S13 discarded as one of the tools in the tool-kit for fighting hate, whatever the source of that hate.

As a side note, Meir and the gang (including possibly a small contingent from the Canadian Hindu Advocacy) will be driving up to Quebec later this month (the 26th, I think) to protest Huntingdon Mayor Stephane Gendron's recent remarks on the Israel/Palestine conflict.  These are the latest in a series of inflammatory statements by the fellow, and a few have clearly strayed over the line into Anti-Semitism.  More power to Meir and Co., then, but be careful--don't get yourselves lynched out there in the back-country!

Gary Harding, the only Canadian to be convicted of hate-mongering under the criminal code, was also in attendance.  And, minus the beard, he looks astoundingly like Dr. Dawg.  And that's not a joke or an attempt to insult the Dawg; Harding even had the same style of hat.  I almost went up and said hello, but noticed a mad gleam in his eye (Dawg also has a gleam in his eye from years of NDP indoctrination, but its a slightly different gleam.  That's how I could tell the difference).  I didn't catch much of what Harding said to the people around him; however, a couple of them looked as though they wanted to change seats but were too polite.

It doesn't seem like anyone from Free Dominion showed up, through apparently several of them watched via webcast.  That's a pity, because  there was a FreeD guy sitting next to me at the Lemire hearing whose name, and a DNA sample, I wanted to collect this time out for inclusion on my personal enemies list. 

Went out for drinks later with Bernie Farber and other notables from the old CJC.  Almost all of our discussion was ruled officially "off the record", and will remain so, because I don't want to get sued nine ways from sideways.  However, the general sense seemed to be that this was all window dressing and, no matter where CIJA eventually comes down on the issue of section 13 (they're currently fence-sitting), its gone which--given how hard it is to get the police to act on a hate speech complaint via the criminal code--means Canada will have no viable legal means of combating hate speech.  There have been hints dropped that, as a replacement, the Tories will move to make the criminal code provisions easier to use, but nothing concrete so far.  In any case, we shall see.  There will be a fight in the HOC over Storseth's bill to repeal the measure; so far nobody from the NDP or Liberals has come out in support.  And surprises can happen, even in a majority parliament.

Finally, Ron Bannerjee of the Canadian Hindu Advocacy was apparently in attendance, but I did not meet him.  Which is also a pity: one of my readers recently commented that the guy was an honest to goodness porn star, which remark I deleted as possibly defamatory.  Maybe Ron could clear this up, though.  If its true, my hat is off.

Farber On The Gatineau Mosque And Other Recent Hate Crimes

Bernie has a nice piece in the Citizen:

Recently there has been a debate raging here in Canada regarding the necessity of antihate laws. There are those who believe that any restriction on speech whatsoever is an infringement on our valued right to free-speech. In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld our anti-hate laws by a slim margin. While it found that such laws were a limitation on speech, given the serious need to ensure protection of vulnerable minorities such an infringement, it argued, was justified.

I agree. We are a democracy based on justice and law. We understand that human beings are far from perfect, hence we created laws to protect society. Anti-hate laws are a kind of insurance for the future. Such laws help define us as a tolerant society. To be sure we must find the correct balance between freedom of expression and the right to equality that we all share.

Obviously, a sentiment I agree with.

And let me mention again that Richard Warman will be debating Nathalie Des Rosiers  of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association re Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act on Tuesday, January 10th, at the George Ignatieff Theatre in Toronto.  The event begins at 7:00 pm.  It would be nice to see a few progressives in attendance, as you know the loonies will be out in force.

Now, the clowns that attacked the Gatineau Mosque, and the ones that keyed the car of mixed-race couple Rita Brown and Seun Oyinsan, probably have never heard of section 13.  In fact, I doubt they can count that high between them.  However, those within the more organized racist community have heard of it, and should it be repealed this Spring, they will treat the occasion as a great victory and a license.  I expect we will see more and broader attempts to organize later this year.  And I'm not the only one who thinks that. 

Sun TV Interviews Criminals

 ...in particular convicted hate-monger Gary Harding.  And it turns out to be really boring.  Next Kory Teneycke will be scouring  the prisons for guests to appear on his increasingly unwatched network.  At least they'll work for free.

Richard Warman takes note.

Where Richard Warman's Money Goes

Richard Warman (left) presents a donation of $1,000 to Wayne Nightingale (centre), head of the Military Family Resource Centre. The money is the first instalment of a $5,000 pledge that comes from a libel lawsuit where Mr. Warman accepted damages and agreed with the defendant to donate the money to helping military families in need. James Katz, Mr. Warman’s lawyer at law firm Brazeau Seller is pictured right.

Dunno what case its from.  I know Mr. Katz has been involved in the FreeD case, though the bulk of that is still ongoing.

Shaidle's Hubby Still Getting Sued

Arnie Lemaire, of  Imaginit Technologies, is still in trouble with Richard Warman:

Latest – Warman v. Arnie Lemaire (aka Blazingcatfur and husband of Kathy Shaidle). In December of 2010, this libel action was moved into simplified proceedings with a maximum claim of $50,000 in total damages. A pre-trial conference date has now been set in February, 2012 at Ottawa.

Arnie attributed the Cools Post to Warman.  But it wasn't Warman, and now Arnie must pay (eventually) for the lies he spread.

Warman On Fitna

Fitna is a 16-minute long video by Dutch far-right, xenophobic politician Geert Wilders that seeks to demonize the Muslim community using classic hate propaganda techniques. Wilders is currently on trial in the Netherlands for criminal incitement of hatred against Muslims and Fitna forms part of the evidence in the case against him.

What follows asks the questions:
i) what does Canadian criminal law say about anti-Muslim hate propaganda? and,
ii) would dissemination of Fitna in Canada be criminal?

The .pdf of RW's presentation is here, but if you want to skip to the end:

Based on all of the above, as with the material in the Harding case, I believe that dissemination of the Fitna video in Canada would also constitute the willful promotion of hatred in violation of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.