Section of 319(Section 1) of the Canadian Criminal Code (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html)
states:
Public incitement of hatred
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in
any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such
incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace 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.
The page has been linked above, so the reader can review the
description along with the parameters for defense. The standards set the Canada
Criminal Code Section 319 are going to be used as the standard for the rest of
this article, although some of the situations below occurred in other jurisdictions
and other laws.
This article seeks to identify situations in which public
figures have incited hate and suffered no legal consequence. This work is
simply an opinion piece and intends to have the reader consider take what they
are being told with the proverbial ‘grain of salt’ thus safeguarding the reader
from becoming a mark.
Historical note: When
dishonest carnival game operators found someone who they could entice to keep
playing their "rigged" (slang term: "gaffed") game, they
would then "mark" the player by patting their back with a hand that
had chalk on it. Other game operators would then look for these chalk marks and
entice the individual to also play their rigged game.
Many statements that incite hate likely to lead to a breach
of the peace are based on lies. Of course a proper truth can also lead to a
breach of the peace; instances of sports teams losing or the wrong person
becoming President of the USA
Lies, damn lies and
statistics
A lie comes in many forms; below is a simplified list of
common lie tactics and how they can be recognized:
1) Bold-Faced Lie – When someone makes a factually wrong
statement that is known to be wrong.
2) Lie of Fabrication – When someone makes a statement of
fact on a topic the recipient(s) is/are uncertain.
3) Lies of Deception – Also known as ‘lie by omission’, this
type of lie provides an impression because some facts are left out.
4) Lying in Exaggeration – When someone overstates a fact
and possibly some other falsehoods to
Statement#1: The Gender
Wage Gap persists in Ontario
Response: The GWG
is the mathematical averaging of men’s and women’s wages across many industries,
many positions, working hours, investments made, risks taken and personal
desires. This author is perplexed at how anyone can demand an equal output when
there is no consideration towards equal input; this comes across as expecting
equal air pressure regardless of altitude above sea level.
Another perplexing aspect of this line of thinking is how
would this proposed equalization work? There are a number of solutions
available, with the following ideas rising to top of this author’s top of mind:
A) force companies to raise the pay of those women with a
similar job description to men regardless if those women work less hours or are
less productive than their male counterparts, though that would be fascism
which would be private ownership under government control.
B) the government fills in the gap with tax payer monies;
this would be a redistribution of wealth which would be communism.
C) the government could legislate, that men mimic women by
not striving, by working less, not investing or not taking risk; this would
result in a suppression of economic growth though that could come across as
reverse slavery.
D) women could voluntarily work as men work though the
problem here is that already they have that option in hand and yet most have
not leveraged it. Context is important.
Statement#2: In a
settler colonial state like Canada
Response: In this article there is a section that
describes ‘Systemic racism in Canada ’
and it raises an interesting factoid, where ‘both Black women and men were less
likely to obtain post-secondary education compared to women and men in the rest
of the population in Vancouver
Another problem with this paper is subsection #2 near the
bottom where the concept of ‘educate yourself’ is broached. He who controls the
education controls the nation and so the question must be raised as to the
source of the education to be sought out, for most people take on positions based
on what they have been informed about, regardless if the understanding is derived
from second, or third hand information.
Statement#3: WaPo
stated that Donald J. Trump said ‘When Mexico sends its people, they’re not
sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re
sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems
with us. They’re bringing drugs They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists’
Then Salon finished off the quote with ‘They’re bringing
drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are
good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.’
Response: While the Washington Post provided a message,
though they did leave the ‘good people’ part out as noted by Salon. FPOTUS
Trump is well known for his bombastic message delivery method, though does that
make him wrong in even the WaPo message? This author says yes Trump was wrong,
though he is well known for not having the most delicate of message delivery means,
it wasn’t the Mexican government sending the illegal migrants. This assumes
Trump knows something the rest of us don’t or Trump assumes that the cartels
and people smugglers are the true power in Mexico
Statement#4: A
woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.
Response: A woman is an adult human female. Full stop!
The first problem, for this author, is the circular nature
of the argument because of the definition because it breaks the rule of never
use the word in the definition that one is defining. Secondly, why is it that only
along gender lines that self- identity can be made self- mutable and all other
identification markers are non-mutable?
Conclusion:
Lying usually servers one of two purposes, a means to gain
something or a means to avoid losing something. The former is typically called
a scam, propaganda or a political speech, while the latter is most often
performed by children and politicians to avoid punishment.
By leaving out some facts, the impression of the event is
not what actually happened at the event. For example, there is the classic line
from the CNN field reporter standing in front of a burning Wendy’s restaurant
claiming at the time that he was in a ‘mostly peaceful protest’. By leaving out
some facts around an event, the Media caused many people to become angry and
riot; is this not a communication which leads to a breach of the peace?
Notes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_carnival
(lookup the word mark)
Statement#2- https://vpfo.ubc.ca/2021/03/systemic-racism-what-it-looks-like-in-canada-and-how-to-fight-it/
No comments:
Post a Comment