Monday, March 28, 2011

Canadian academic to be tried for hate speech

He's already been acquitted in one court. He is just a standard antisemitic conspiracy theorist who stated his views on a website. Democrat hero General Wesley Clark appears to have similar views.
"Former University of Saskatchewan instructor Terrence Tremaine will have his day in court for charges of spreading hate speech, reported the Leader-Post.

On Mar. 11, Regina Provincial Court Judge Bruce Henning decided that the crown had provided enough evidence at a preliminary hearing to proceed to a trial. A court date has not yet been set.

In the past Tremaine has declared himself to be the leader of the National-Socialist Party of Canada, an unregistered political party which is dedicated to white sovereignty.

Doug Christie, a lawyer practising in B.C. who once called anti-hate legislation “a massive waste of police resources” according to the Leader-Post, will represent Tremaine in court.

Christie’s previous clients include the late First Nations Leader David Ahenakew, who faced charges of inciting hatred which were later dismissed.

Source

If they don't get him in the next trial, the will most probably keep going to other courts until they get the verdict they want.

That's what they did with Ahenakew. He praised Hitler and called Jews a disease. He was at first convicted of hate speech but they kept appealing the verdict until they finally got him off -- on the grounds that his comments did not show an intent to incite hatred. Only a Canadian could conclude that!

But Ahenakew is a minority person, you see. There are opposite rules for whites and minorities in Canada.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is a personal opinion the same as so-called hate speech?

Well, apparently it is, especially when your opinion is something highly protected "special" groups don't like to hear. As an example, here in the US, stating an opinion that Jews, blacks, or gays dislike can get you charged with hate speech.

In the US, hate crime laws are, (or should be) on their face, unconstitutional, in that they provide a "special" protection to members of those special groups, but not to the rest of the population. (Equal Protection Under The Law)

Spurwing Plover said...

No free speech in canaduuhhh im glad i dont live there and im opposed tot NORTH AMERICAN(SOVIET)UNION

Anonymous said...

Wesley Clark, the progressive general who still whines about not being picked to head the Joint Chiefs. He's pathetic.