Update: Candidate for Canadian Parliament Convicted of Hate Crime for Saying Gays Should be Killed.

[Northern_Piper]

Last fall, I started a thread in the Pit about David Popescu, a fringe candidate for Parliament in last year’s federal election: Canada: Candidate for Parliament tells High School Students: Kill the Gays.

As a result of his comments, he’s recently been convicted under the Criminal Code offence of promoting hatred: Popescu guilty of promoting hatred.

The Crown evidently made some leeway with the fact that the same part of the Bible that Mr. Popescu relied upon also states that children who strike their parents should be stoned to death. Mr. Popescu has a previous conviction for assaulting his mother. Curiously, Mr. Popescu didn’t seem to think he should have been stoned to death. :dubious:

Popescu testified Friday the bible lists homosexuality as a sin for which one should be stoned to death.

Prosecutor Andrew Slater then suggested that, by the same rule, Popescu should have been stoned to death in 2003 when he was convicted of assaulting his mother.

Popescu, however, said the assault was a false accusation.

“I never did hit my mother,” he said, even though he was convicted of the charge.

In court in 2003, he admitted he had given his mother a “small swat and a light shake” to get her attention when she was not paying attention to him during a dispute over the placement of towels in their home.

[Judge] Mahaffy said it was hypocritical of Popescu to say he should not be punished for an assault on his mother, then suggest it should be done to homosexuals.

If he felt he was not guilty, Popescu could have appealed the assault conviction, but he did not, the judge said

The judge gave him a suspended sentence and placed him on probation for 18 months.

[Small_Hen]

Guy sounds like an all around prince, doesn’t he?

I do, however, support protected free speech, including hate speech. So I’ll exercise that right and encourage people to throw rocks at him.

[UltraVires]

As much as I disagree with what the guy said, I find it astounding that Canada would stifle speech like that.

[Marley23]

@jtgain

As much as I disagree with what the guy said, I find it astounding that Canada would stifle speech like that.

Gee, I thought it was “astounding” a candidate for national office in Canada said gays should be executed. I’m opposed to laws that restrict what people can say, but since there are similar laws in most countries, I find the conviction less astounding than the crazy hate.

[Swallowed_My_Cellphone]

@jtgain

As much as I disagree with what the guy said, I find it astounding that Canada would stifle speech like that.

It’s a bit more complicated than that and yet so simple too. It’s also really not taken lightly. You are allowed to spew hatred as much as you want, as long as you aren’t advocating genocide or inciting a riot/violence.

You can say: “I really hate gays. Hate, hate, hate, hate them! I wish we lived in a society that killed them upon discovery! I wish we could create a gay vaccine so that faggotry vanished like smallpox! They are sick, sick, sick perverts and the abominations in the eyes of civilised society! I wish AIDS worked instantaneously so they would perish on faggoty contact! If one of them came up to me, I’d cockpunch him!”

That’s allowed.

But if your words are inciting violence, “We should tear down those pride decorations and beat some sense into them! Let’s go!” or if you are advocating genocide, such as: “We should execute gays!” is not acceptable.

So “I wish God would just smite them already and leave the world gay-free” is okay, but “Gays should be executed!” (implying systematic genocide) crosses the line.

Exceptions exist for issues of public debate, or religious doctrine. Dickwad tried to argue “religious doctrine”, the Crown pointed out a hole in that theory you could drive a truck full of beaten up little old ladies through.

ETA:

@Marley23

Gee, I thought it was “astounding” a candidate for national office in Canada said gays should be executed.

This guy is a very fringey fringe guy. He was never considered even a vaguely credible contender. He’s the town looney who somehow managed to scrape together the bare minimum paperwork requirements to get on the ticket.

[UltraVires]

@The Article

A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed," he said. “My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn’t be more clear on that point.” Candidates and teachers looked on in silence as students called for him to be “cut off.” Despite their outrage, the discussion moved to other topics.

Note that he didn’t say, “Come on guys, lets get some rope and hang these queers!” He didn’t advocate any type of violence that would put anyone in danger. He was simply espousing a political and religious opinion, as ludicrous as it may be.

How far of a stretch would it be to make it a hate crime to call for execution of murders? Isn’t that inciting violence? Maybe someone knows someone who got away with murder and wants to take the law into his own hands?

[Cat_Whisperer]

@jtgain

As much as I disagree with what the guy said, I find it astounding that Canada would stifle speech like that.

I don’t. I fully support limited free speech, and one of the limits is inciting violence against identifiable groups.

[UltraVires]

@featherlou

I don’t. I fully support limited free speech, and one of the limits is inciting violence against identifiable groups.

Ok. What if he said, “The Bible says that homosexuals should be executed,” and left it at that. Crime?

[Shirley_Ujest]

@jtgain

Note that he didn’t say, “Come on guys, lets get some rope and hang these queers!” . ?

But…queers are already well hung…

/try the veal.

[Marley23]

@Swallowed_My_Cellphone

ETA:This guy is a very fringey fringe guy. He was never considered even a vaguely credible contender. He’s the town looney who somehow managed to scrape together the bare minimum paperwork requirements to get on the ticket.

I figured. Still, down here I don’t think even Alan Keyes says stuff like that.

[Grey]

@jtgain

Ok. What if he said, “The Bible says that homosexuals should be executed,” and left it at that. Crime?

Statement of fact and not an incitement to violence so he’d likely be fine.

[Princhester]

@Swallowed_My_Cellphone

I wish AIDS worked instantaneously so they would perish on faggoty contact! If one of them came up to me, I’d cockpunch him!"

Wouldn’t this result in your death by AIDS instantaneously?

[Northern_Piper]

@Swallowed_My_Cellphone

It’s a bit more complicated than that and yet so simple too. It’s also really not taken lightly. You are allowed to spew hatred as much as you want, as long as you aren’t advocating genocide or inciting a riot/violence.

No, advocating genocide is a different provision, s. 318.

Spreading hatred to incite a breach of the peace is also a different provision, s. 319(1).

It looks as if he was convicted under s. 319(2):

**Wilful promotion of hatred

319**(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[Northern_Piper]

@Small_Hen

I do, however, support protected free speech, including hate speech. So I’ll exercise that right and encourage people to throw rocks at him.

So what do you view as “protected” free speech? As soon as you put that qualifier in, you’re just saying that you would draw the line at a different place.

[Tom_Tildrum]

…wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group…

Simply “promoting hatred” is enough? Most of the Pit consists of threads promoting hatred against identifiable groups of political or ideological adversaries. Are those criminally actionable as to Canadian participants?

Is al-Qaeda an identifiable group for purposes of this law?

Is there prior case law construing “hatred” to implicitly require some sort of incitement to violence, or otherwise limiting this provision somehow?

[Northern_Piper]

@Tom Tildrum

Simply “promoting hatred” is enough? Most of the Pit consists of threads promoting hatred against identifiable groups of political or ideological adversaries. Are those criminally actionable as to Canadian participants?

Is al-Qaeda an identifiable group for purposes of this law?

“identifiable group” in s. 319 has the same meaning as in s. 318(4):

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

So I wouldn’t think that Al Quaeda would count. It is a Muslim group, but what distinguishes it from other Muslim groups is its commitment to terrorism as a means of political action.

Also, the definition of “promoting” is governed by caselaw, as summarised below. What I’ve seen in the Pit wouldn’t meet that definition, IMHO.

@Tom Tildrum

Is there prior case law construing “hatred” to implicitly require some sort of incitement to violence, or otherwise limiting this provision somehow?

Not an incitement to violence, since that’s covered by s. 319(1), linked to above.

The leading case is R. v. Keegstra, in which the Supreme Court interpreted the provision and upheld it from a constitutional challenge. The majority held that the combination of the terms “promoting” and “wilfully” created a very high standard of mens rea:

@Chief Justice Dickson

On appeal, Martin J.A. overturned the conviction [in another case, R. v. Buzzanga]. He noted that the word “wilfully” does not have a fixed meaning in criminal law, and thus sought to divine the use and import of the word as it appears in s. 319(2) (pp. 379-81). Comparing the section with s. 319(1) (then s. 281.2(1)), which prohibits incitement to hatred in a public place where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of peace, he said (at pp. 381-82):

The insertion of the word “wilfully” in [s. 319(2)] was not necessary to import mens rea since that requirement would be implied in any event because of the serious nature of the offence: see R. v. Prue, supra. The statements, the communication of which are proscribed by [s. 319(2)], are not confined to statements communicated in a public place in circumstances likely to lead to a breach of the peace and they, consequently, do not pose such an immediate threat to public order as those falling under [s. 319(1)]; it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that Parliament intended to limit the offence under [s. 319(2)] to the intentional promotion of hatred. It is evident that the use of the word “wilfully” in [s. 319(2)], and not in [s. 319(1)], reflects Parliament’s policy to strike a balance in protecting the competing social interests of freedom of expression on the one hand, and public order and group reputation on the other hand.

More specifically, Martin J.A. went on to elaborate on the meaning of “wilfully”, concluding that this mental element is satisfied only where an accused subjectively desires the promotion of hatred or foresees such a consequence as certain or substantially certain to result from an act done in order to achieve some other purpose (pp. 384-85). On the facts in Buzzanga, the trial judge had informed the jury that “wilfully” could be equated with the intention to create “controversy, furor and an uproar” (p. 386). This interpretation was clearly incompatible with Martin J.A.'s requirement that the promotion of hatred be intended or foreseen as substantially certain, and a new trial was therefore ordered.

The interpretation of “wilfully” in Buzzanga has great bearing upon the extent to which s. 319(2) limits the freedom of expression. This mental element, requiring more than merely negligence or recklessness as to result, significantly restricts the reach of the provision, and thereby reduces the scope of the targeted expression. Such a reduced scope is recognized and applauded in the Law Reform Commission of Canada’s Working Paper on Hate Propaganda, op. cit., it being said that (at p. 36):

The principle of restraint requires lawmakers to concern themselves not just with whom they want to catch, but also with whom they do not want to catch. For example, removing an intent or purpose requirement could well result in successful prosecutions of cases similar to Buzzanga, where members of a minority group publish hate propaganda against their own group in order to create controversy or to agitate for reform. This crime should not be used to prosecute such individuals.

I agree with the interpretation of “wilfully” in Buzzanga, and wholeheartedly endorse the view of the Law Reform Commission Working Paper that this stringent standard of mens rea is an invaluable means of limiting the incursion of s. 319(2) into the realm of acceptable (though perhaps offensive and controversial) expression. It is clear that the word “wilfully” imports a difficult burden for the Crown to meet and, in so doing, serves to minimize the impairment of freedom of expression.

See also R. v. Ahenakew, a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which emphasises that the element of “promotion” means that the accused must intend to promote his views; merely stating them in public, even to a news reporter, is not sufficient. The mens rea requires a subjective intention to promote hatred.

[Tom_Tildrum]

That does narrow the provision somewhat. Thanks.

[Small_Hen]

@Northern_Piper

So what do you view as “protected” free speech? As soon as you put that qualifier in, you’re just saying that you would draw the line at a different place.

Poorly worded sentence. I believe that free speech should be protected under the constitution (yes, I know this was in Canada, but if I believe something in Montana, I believe it in Alberta).

[RickJay]

@Small_Hen

Poorly worded sentence. I believe that free speech should be protected under the constitution (yes, I know this was in Canada, but if I believe something in Montana, I believe it in Alberta).

Should child pornography be legal?

It’s a honest question with an honest point. Child porn, legal or illegal?

[Ruken]

I am appalled by what he said (but not surprised).
I’m also appalled by the laws that make what he said illegal.