According to the WBC, they were told by an RCMP officer that they couldn’t carry their “God Hates Fags” signs. The criminal code does prohibit public displays that are likely to cause a riot or incite violence against a particular group. So they were free to say genralized “God Hates Canadians” or “Canadians should burn”, “the Candian government is a bunch of monkey-fuckers”, or whatever, but not specifically target a particular group.
So burning the Canadian flag is fine. Burning an effigy of the Prime Minister or a model of the Parliament building as a poltical statement of dissent is okay. But specifically targeting a minority group to incite violence against said group, like “Muslims are all evil, throw rocks at them!” or “Faggots should be crucified!”, is a no-no.
IIRC, the law has been used to expell a German white supremacist, Hitler worshipping, holocaust denier for “anti-Semitic hatred-inciting activities.” (He was trying to stay in Canada as a refugee because he would face criminal charges in Germany for his Holocause-denying activities). Canada didn’t want him and the U.S. had already thrown him out too.
But the WBC thinks the law was created just for them.
Note: The the Nazi dude’s case, he wrote great gobs of literature that denies the holocaust ever happened. That’s allowed under Canada’s freedom of expression laws (laws about “disseminating false news” were struck down as unconstutional), but the “we’re gonna get you [Jews] yet!” stuff was not.
It would depend on just what the Phelps clan says or displays at the funeral. If they turn up with “God Hates Fags” signs, then yes, I would expect a prosecution. If they turn up and shuffle about without really saying anything bad against gays, then there would not be a prosecution.
The Phelps clan’s "God Hates Fags"picketing violates s.319 of our Criminal Code by publicly promoting hatred against an identifiable group. They could raise the statutory defence of good faith expression of religious opinion, as well as Charter/Constitutional freedoms of religion and expression, but I doubt if they would get off.
The Courts have been reluctant to let promotion of hatred run wild under the guise of religion, for to permit such conduct would be to permit the defence to be used as a sword promoting of hatred rather than as a shield protecting freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
As Justice Dambrot of the Ontario Superior Court (in appeal) put it: “[42] It seems to me that the plain words of s. 319(3)(b) can only rationally provide a defence to a person who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group, in the rare circumstances where, in the communication of those very statements, that person, in good faith, was expressing or attempting to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject. Of course, the trier of fact must look to the context in order to construe the intention of the maker. But I see no reason to construe the defence in s. 319(3)(b) in a manner that would permit the mere imbedding of a wilful message of hate within protected religious comment to immunize the maker of the message from successful prosecution. As Linden C. Prov. J. aptly put it, religious opinion could then be used with impunity as a Trojan horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by s. 319.” R. v. Harding, 2001 CanLII 28036 (ON S.C.)
I might as well come clean. About a decade back, I eviscerated part of the Trans-Canada Highway north of the Soo. My trailer hitch broke as I bounced from a logging road onto the paved highway. It took me a few yards to figure out why the vehicle did not want to accelerate – the trailer tongue was dug under the pavement ploughing a furrow across the highway as the trailer was dragged along by the safety chains.
Li boarded the bus in Edmonton. He went as far as Erickson, MB where he got off and putzed around. He sold his computer to someone - negotiating for about 5 or 10 minutes on the price (Li originally wanted $600 but settled for $60). He hung out at the Erickson Co-op for a rather long time, including sitting on the steps outside the Co-Op well past 3:00 am. He then somehow made his way to Brandon, caught another bus and all hell broke loose.
The creepy part is that my parents live about 10 minutes from Erickson. The kid who bought the computer is the son of the woman who worked as a cleaner at my Uncle’s resort (Dorothy). The man who observed Li sitting outside the Co-Op sits on council - with my dad.
Jesus, not only is this guy bat-shit insane, he’s spent a not insignificant amount of time with people I know. The kid who bought the computer indicated that there were a number of job applications on it including one for McDonalds and one for the POLICE FORCE. Jesus - can you imagine if he stopped you for speeding! (The computer has subsequently been seized by RCMP as evidence).
I think the law works in a similar way as California’s Penal Code 422 (I nkow there are similar laws in the U.S. but this is the only one I can cite). In the U.S. you have the freedom of speech, but if you threaten someone with death or or great bodily harm you can go to jail. In Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms give you the freedom of speech, but you can’t use “hate speech” speicifically designed to target a group with the purpose of incite violence or persecution.
Phelps and his asshats have placards and carefully screenprinted t-shirts. They were told they could play with those. In their arrogance, they seem to think this law was created specifically for them, right on the spot. Bozos!
alice_in_wonderland: That is creepy. I’d feel a little squicked out if people I knew had even an innocent brush with a maniac.
Selling off his computer makes it sound like he was leaning toward suicidal, giving away his possession and what not. Question: If his movement suggest he was about to blow a gasket and he knew it (like maybe he was planning “suicide by cop”) could his charges be upgraded to first degree murder?
Actually, I thought that sounded like he had run out of money - perhaps he needed the extra $$ to get the ticket to Winnipeg.
I do know that Dorothy who’s a nice, but rather hysterical woman at the best of times is absolutely losing her blob. Actually, I think most of the folks around Erickson and Onanole are pretty freaked out. I mean, the attack was literally without provocation. Who know - you could be buying milk and glance at the guy and wind up with a knife in your head.
Edited to add: Dorothy’s son (who I’ve met about 1,000 times but who’s name I can’t remember) said that Li was a really nice, normal seeming guy. Not creepy, not weird, chatty and pleasant.
My personal, wild ass guess is that Li was on his way to Winnipeg to look for work, had a transient psychotic break on the bus potentially due to a number of life stressors and has little or no memory of the events of the bus. To me this explains why he refuses to speak to anyone, and why, when the jugde describes the crimes he is accused of, he said “Please kill me.”
Mom and I were talking about it and imagine this - you go for a trip. You wake up 2 or 3 days later and you’re not sure where you are. A metric assload of people tell you that you went mental, killed someone, cut off their head and ate their body parts. Ya know, I think I’d just want to die too.
Wierd stuff. As far as I know, it hasn’t been picked up in the Chinese press, even though Mr. Li is a Chinese immigrant. I sure hope that the Police have gotten some Chinese speakers in to see Mr. Li, and maybe he’ll open up in his native language.
Given the current preoccupations of the Chinese media, it’s unlikely this story would get any coverage unless Random Transit Butchery were to be made an Olympic event.
$4 to $40 dollar fine? The Phelp’s gang would look at it as a small price for such publicity.
Also, as long as they protest outside the cemetary boundary, the Act would not apply.
The police spoksperson is premature in stating that a protest would not violate any hate laws, given that it is not yet known whether the Phelps gang would display their “God Hates Fags” signs.
Something of interest: if the Phelps gang stand on the sidewalk outside the cemetary (so no Cemetary Act charge) and voice their concerns without setting out any identifiable group (so no hate crime charge), there is still the possibility that they could be charged with unlawful assembley (up to six months for a sentence) under C.C.C. s. 63(1)(b), if the persons in the neighbourhood have reasonable grounds to fear that the Phelps gang will provoke other persons to get into a tumult. If a significant number of people turn up near the funeral to physically block the Phelps gang, it would be quite reasonable for the Cops to haul off the Phelps gang, and charge them with unlawful assembly if they did not cooperate. Of course the people standing against the Phelps gang could also be charged, but unless one of them started swinging, I doubt if the police would charge them or the Crown would prosecute them.