It's not that anybody has a problem with immigrants in general, it's illegal immigrants who believe we owe them citizenship. As stated in the constitution, it is a federal crime to illegally enter the United States. No matter how you look at it, you cannot justify a reason why you can't just come here legally. It wouldn't be fair if we granted all of the illegal immigrants amnesty, considering all of the ones who actually do enter our country legally. Also, supporters of illegals threatening violence against Americans isn't helping their case at all. I welcome anybody who comes here legally, I just don't take too well to the self-entitled types who believe the whole world owes them something.
go ahead i dont have to worry about being caught since i have nothing to be convicted of and thats what these legal immigrants who have proper papers need to be like if ur legal show the papers and be on ur way
But he's asking if you'd be offended or bothered if you were pulled over and subjected to a search based soley on how you looked. It's not that you'd have to worry, it's the fact that your rights would be violated. He's asking if you'd support that type of legislation.
Bianca, does the fact that a person was not born here or is a citizen make them less of a human? Don't they have the same basic human rights that we all do?
Hre you go Bianca......the copy of just one part of one of the many laws.......it's really long and I apologize in advance to everyone else but she asked....
Criminal Code Provisions
(a) Hate propaganda - incitement The most notable group of provisions in the Criminal Code which address hate activity are those which impose a criminal sanction against advocating or promoting genocide and wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, in addition to that which empowers a judge to seize hate propaganda. The applicable Criminal Code provisions are sections 318, 319 and 320.
Section 318 prohibits advocating genocide against an identifiable group. Genocide means intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group by killing members of the group or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Identifiable groups are any group distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. To date, there have been no charges laid under this section in Ontario.
Section 319 deals with two separate offences. The first prohibits communicating statements in any public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The second branch of section 319 (i.e.. section 319(2)) is the provision which has been used more extensively and has been seen as the primary criminal provision available to combat hate propaganda. Section 319(2) prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, by communicating statements other than in private conversation. The maximum sentence available under this provision is two years imprisonment.
There are a number of full defences available to a person charged with wilful promotion of hatred. These defences include establishing the statements were true; made in good faith; relevant to any subject of public interest and made for the public benefit if on reasonable grounds the accused thought the statements to be true; or if in good faith the accused intended to point out for the purpose of removal matters producing or intending to produce feelings of hatred towards an identifiable group in Canada (e.g.. the statements were made to educate people about racism and anti-racism).
A key requirement of section 319(2) is that the consent of the Provincial Attorney General is required prior to the laying of a charge. A number of individuals and groups active in anti-racist causes have argued that this aspect of the provision should be removed because it makes it relatively difficult to lay a charge as compared with other Criminal Code provisions. There have also been arguments that the categories of groups included in the provision should be expanded and available defences reduced.
Any change in section 319(2), however minor, could threaten the constitutionality of the provision. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly held that the provision is constitutional. The Court made its pronouncement in R. v. Keegstra and the companion case of R. v. Andrews (1990) 1 C.R.(4th) 266 (S.C.C). Keegstra was charged with violating the section due to his 14 years of teaching students that the Holocaust never happened and that there exists an evil Jewish conspiracy determined to control the world.
In Keegstra, the Supreme Court held that while the provision offends the freedom of expression guaranteed in section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is a reasonable limit on that freedom pursuant to section 1 of the Charter. Significantly, the Court found the provision to be a reasonable limit on freedom of speech largely due to the safeguards against abuse of the section contained in the numerous defences offered and the requirement to obtain the Attorney General's consent. It is likely that any change to the section would result in another test case going forward to the Supreme Court of Canada over the course of many years, effectively nullifying the impact of the provision in the interim.
Contrary to popular belief, Ernst Zundel has never been charged with wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. Rather, in 1983, Sabina Citron, a Holocaust survivor, laid a private complaint pursuant to section 181 of the Criminal Code, colloquially known as the false news law (i.e. everyone who wilfully promotes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest). During the 1980s Zundel was convicted twice by a jury of his peers in relation to his distribution of Did Six Million Really Die?, an anti-Semitic Holocaust denial tract. However, in August 1992, in a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that the "false news law" was unconstitutional as, in the majority's opinion, the limit to free speech contained in this section was too broad, and therefore could not be justified pursuant to section 1 of the Charter. (See R. v Zundel (1992), 75 C.C.C. (3rd) 449 (S.C.C.))
The fact that hate propagandists such as Ernst Zundel or others of his ilk have not been charged under section 319(2) speaks more to the lack of enforcement than to the effectiveness of the section. While use of the section should be reserved for the most serious of hate propaganda cases, there is no doubt that it is underused. Despite spiralling incidents of hate propaganda in the early 1990s and the launching of the so-called Metropolitan Toronto Police "Hate Crimes Unit", only one person was charged with violating section 319(2) by the Hate Unit. (Metro Police Service's Hate Crimes Unit did assist Durham Regional Police and the Ontario Provincial Police in a two-year investigation that led to hate promotion charges being laid against two Durham men in October 1996. The Attorney-General gave consent to the charges being laid 8 months after the completion of the police investigation.) In August 1993 the Attorney General of Ontario gave consent to the commencement of proceedings against Elisse Hategan, a former Heritage Front member. The charges were withdrawn when it became clear to police that Hategan was not responsible for wilfully promoting hatred, but instead following a change of heart was warning some anti-racist activists in her school about being targeted by hate propaganda produced by the Heritage Front.
It is not clear whether any responsibility lies with police or the Department of the Attorney-General for the dearth of charges laid under this section in recent years. What is clear is that there has been a lack of adequate resolve at the enforcement levels of responsibility, which has rendered section 319(2) much less of a deterrent than it should be.
The last in a trio of anti-hate provisions, section 320 of the Criminal Code permits a judge to authorize the seizure of any publication that he/she deems, on reasonable grounds, to be hate propaganda.
(b) Hate motivation - sentence enhancement The hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code, described above, recognize the need in a free and democratic society to reasonably balance the right of citizens to freely speak their mind without fear of retribution, together with the right of ethnic, racial, and religious minorities to be protected from harmful vilification. Canada's anti-hate laws provide a fence of protection for minority groups against hate propaganda while at the same time ensuring that, as much as possible, freedom of speech is honoured and guaranteed. However, other forms of hate crime are not caught by the hate propaganda sections. These are Criminal Code offences motivated by hatred against an identifiable group, which do not involve hate propaganda. Such offences can range from mischief (e.g. defacing synagogues or mosques with anti-Jewish or Muslim epithets), to the most vicious assaults, to murder.
Throughout the early 1990s, hate crime of this type continued to rise in a most dramatic fashion, particularly in the urban areas of our country. In August 1994, Detective Sergeant Wayne Cotgreave of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Hate Crimes Unit noted that there had been a 51% increase in hate crimes reported in the Metro Toronto Area, compared with the previous reporting period.
In 1995 legislative proposals to reform sentencing practices in Canada, popularly known as Bill C-41, received royal assent. A portion of Bill C-41, now found in the Criminal Code as section 718.2, provides for longer sentences for hate-motivated crimes. In effect, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code makes hate motivation in the commission of any offence an aggravating factor upon sentencing.
For example, prior to the enactment of the section, there was no requirement that a court order a more serious sentence for somebody who spray-painted "die Jews" on a synagogue as compared to a perpetrator who spray-painted a happy face on the wall of a corner drugstore. Therefore, section 718.2 pays due regard not only to the property darn age in such a case, or physical pain and injury suffered as a result of an assault, but also takes into account the intense emotional pain suffered by members of the entire targeted community.
The categories of hate-motivation covered by the section include bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor. As a result, the categories included in the provision are even broader than those set out in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code.
"Section 319(2) prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, by communicating statements other than in private conversation. The maximum sentence available under this provision is two years imprisonment."
Well one thing we all know is that illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be dealt with one way or the other. Not everyone is going to agree with how things get done, but many Americans, not just white Americans, are desperate for a solution. If our own Federal Government doesn't step up to the plate, then I support any state who does. If there were one issue that could tear this country apart, I would bet this would be it.
"But he's asking if you'd be offended or bothered if you were pulled over and subjected to a search based soley on how you looked"
tbh not at all. im judged by the way i look on here and dont mind so why should i mind of someone else does it?
"Bianca, does the fact that a person was not born here or is a citizen make them less of a human?"
nope.
"Don't they have the same basic human rights that we all do?"
sure. too bad they cant defend those rights if theyre illegal and have no documentation of actually existing here
and as far as that law goes. didnt bother reading the entire thing so i just read the small excerpt. im promoting hatred? im promoting the fact that i support this law. like i said, im not racist but you choose to believe otherwise.
"Nevermind then. You'll never get it. I'm sorry I wasted my time and yours." Funny..cuz now they'll think they won the argument..lol which isn't true..they just don't get it. :] oh well..
Comments
The question still is would you defend cops who stop people and pull them over just based on "look"?
i dont have to worry about being caught since i have nothing to be convicted of
and thats what these legal immigrants who have proper papers need to be like
if ur legal show the papers and be on ur way
Are you inferring that they need to just accept racial profiling?
Criminal Code Provisions
(a) Hate propaganda - incitement
The most notable group of provisions in the Criminal Code which address hate activity are those which impose a criminal sanction against advocating or promoting genocide and wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, in addition to that which empowers a judge to seize hate propaganda. The applicable Criminal Code provisions are sections 318, 319 and 320.
Section 318 prohibits advocating genocide against an identifiable group. Genocide means intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group by killing members of the group or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Identifiable groups are any group distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. To date, there have been no charges laid under this section in Ontario.
Section 319 deals with two separate offences. The first prohibits communicating statements in any public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The second branch of section 319 (i.e.. section 319(2)) is the provision which has been used more extensively and has been seen as the primary criminal provision available to combat hate propaganda. Section 319(2) prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, by communicating statements other than in private conversation. The maximum sentence available under this provision is two years imprisonment.
There are a number of full defences available to a person charged with wilful promotion of hatred. These defences include establishing the statements were true; made in good faith; relevant to any subject of public interest and made for the public benefit if on reasonable grounds the accused thought the statements to be true; or if in good faith the accused intended to point out for the purpose of removal matters producing or intending to produce feelings of hatred towards an identifiable group in Canada (e.g.. the statements were made to educate people about racism and anti-racism).
A key requirement of section 319(2) is that the consent of the Provincial Attorney General is required prior to the laying of a charge. A number of individuals and groups active in anti-racist causes have argued that this aspect of the provision should be removed because it makes it relatively difficult to lay a charge as compared with other Criminal Code provisions. There have also been arguments that the categories of groups included in the provision should be expanded and available defences reduced.
Any change in section 319(2), however minor, could threaten the constitutionality of the provision. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly held that the provision is constitutional. The Court made its pronouncement in R. v. Keegstra and the companion case of R. v. Andrews (1990) 1 C.R.(4th) 266 (S.C.C). Keegstra was charged with violating the section due to his 14 years of teaching students that the Holocaust never happened and that there exists an evil Jewish conspiracy determined to control the world.
In Keegstra, the Supreme Court held that while the provision offends the freedom of expression guaranteed in section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is a reasonable limit on that freedom pursuant to section 1 of the Charter. Significantly, the Court found the provision to be a reasonable limit on freedom of speech largely due to the safeguards against abuse of the section contained in the numerous defences offered and the requirement to obtain the Attorney General's consent. It is likely that any change to the section would result in another test case going forward to the Supreme Court of Canada over the course of many years, effectively nullifying the impact of the provision in the interim.
Contrary to popular belief, Ernst Zundel has never been charged with wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. Rather, in 1983, Sabina Citron, a Holocaust survivor, laid a private complaint pursuant to section 181 of the Criminal Code, colloquially known as the false news law (i.e. everyone who wilfully promotes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest). During the 1980s Zundel was convicted twice by a jury of his peers in relation to his distribution of Did Six Million Really Die?, an anti-Semitic Holocaust denial tract. However, in August 1992, in a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that the "false news law" was unconstitutional as, in the majority's opinion, the limit to free speech contained in this section was too broad, and therefore could not be justified pursuant to section 1 of the Charter. (See R. v Zundel (1992), 75 C.C.C. (3rd) 449 (S.C.C.))
The fact that hate propagandists such as Ernst Zundel or others of his ilk have not been charged under section 319(2) speaks more to the lack of enforcement than to the effectiveness of the section. While use of the section should be reserved for the most serious of hate propaganda cases, there is no doubt that it is underused. Despite spiralling incidents of hate propaganda in the early 1990s and the launching of the so-called Metropolitan Toronto Police "Hate Crimes Unit", only one person was charged with violating section 319(2) by the Hate Unit. (Metro Police Service's Hate Crimes Unit did assist Durham Regional Police and the Ontario Provincial Police in a two-year investigation that led to hate promotion charges being laid against two Durham men in October 1996. The Attorney-General gave consent to the charges being laid 8 months after the completion of the police investigation.) In August 1993 the Attorney General of Ontario gave consent to the commencement of proceedings against Elisse Hategan, a former Heritage Front member. The charges were withdrawn when it became clear to police that Hategan was not responsible for wilfully promoting hatred, but instead following a change of heart was warning some anti-racist activists in her school about being targeted by hate propaganda produced by the Heritage Front.
It is not clear whether any responsibility lies with police or the Department of the Attorney-General for the dearth of charges laid under this section in recent years. What is clear is that there has been a lack of adequate resolve at the enforcement levels of responsibility, which has rendered section 319(2) much less of a deterrent than it should be.
The last in a trio of anti-hate provisions, section 320 of the Criminal Code permits a judge to authorize the seizure of any publication that he/she deems, on reasonable grounds, to be hate propaganda.
(b) Hate motivation - sentence enhancement
The hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code, described above, recognize the need in a free and democratic society to reasonably balance the right of citizens to freely speak their mind without fear of retribution, together with the right of ethnic, racial, and religious minorities to be protected from harmful vilification. Canada's anti-hate laws provide a fence of protection for minority groups against hate propaganda while at the same time ensuring that, as much as possible, freedom of speech is honoured and guaranteed. However, other forms of hate crime are not caught by the hate propaganda sections. These are Criminal Code offences motivated by hatred against an identifiable group, which do not involve hate propaganda. Such offences can range from mischief (e.g. defacing synagogues or mosques with anti-Jewish or Muslim epithets), to the most vicious assaults, to murder.
Throughout the early 1990s, hate crime of this type continued to rise in a most dramatic fashion, particularly in the urban areas of our country. In August 1994, Detective Sergeant Wayne Cotgreave of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Hate Crimes Unit noted that there had been a 51% increase in hate crimes reported in the Metro Toronto Area, compared with the previous reporting period.
In 1995 legislative proposals to reform sentencing practices in Canada, popularly known as Bill C-41, received royal assent. A portion of Bill C-41, now found in the Criminal Code as section 718.2, provides for longer sentences for hate-motivated crimes. In effect, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code makes hate motivation in the commission of any offence an aggravating factor upon sentencing.
For example, prior to the enactment of the section, there was no requirement that a court order a more serious sentence for somebody who spray-painted "die Jews" on a synagogue as compared to a perpetrator who spray-painted a happy face on the wall of a corner drugstore. Therefore, section 718.2 pays due regard not only to the property darn age in such a case, or physical pain and injury suffered as a result of an assault, but also takes into account the intense emotional pain suffered by members of the entire targeted community.
The categories of hate-motivation covered by the section include bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor. As a result, the categories included in the provision are even broader than those set out in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code.
Made me LOL
that will save you the reading, Bianca.
tbh not at all. im judged by the way i look on here and dont mind so why should i mind of someone else does it?
"Bianca, does the fact that a person was not born here or is a citizen make them less of a human?"
nope.
"Don't they have the same basic human rights that we all do?"
sure. too bad they cant defend those rights if theyre illegal and have no documentation of actually existing here
and as far as that law goes. didnt bother reading the entire thing so i just read the small excerpt. im promoting hatred? im promoting the fact that i support this law. like i said, im not racist but you choose to believe otherwise.
Funny..cuz now they'll think they won the argument..lol
which isn't true..they just don't get it. :]
oh well..