Born Free

Only in your mind....

You must think I'm Barry Scheck. The courts may define the motivations of hate, bias or prejudice as aggravating factors when sentencing an offender for other offences, such as assault, damage to property, threatening, or harassment. The result is usually a more severe punishment. Hope this helps. As an add on....here is a brief history of the early start of Canada's criminal code... When the Provinces of Canada were confederated in 1867, the first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald was adamant that Canada would not suffer the disparate criminal law system inherited from England for long (at that time, each province had its own criminal law). Macdonald believed strongly in the need for a single, uniform regime of criminal law for the entire country. In fact, the Canadian constitution which he helped write, gave the federal government the explicit authority to codify the criminal law. An initial set of nine statutes was passed by the federal House of Commons in 1869 to at least consolidate the law for coinage offences, forgery, offences against the person, larceny, malicious injuries to property, perjury and procedure. A complete Criminal Code was finally achieved in July, 1892, under the leadership of the Minister of Justice and soon-to-be prime minister Sir John Thompson. This was a major event in Canadian legal history. "Just think of it," wrote one judge to Prime Minister Thompson, "Canada in the van! The first to enact a complete codification. It is far and away the best measure of the kind ever submitted to any legislature."

Let me put it this way to you....I'm betting that the preachers statement wouldnt be considered to have contravened the law.

... to some extent it did on this web forum...

Indeed. However, not all criminal acts are violent.

Hate laws dont censor speech.....just like the armed robbery laws dont censor or prevent armed robberies. Hate laws are intended to target people for punishment who have been proven to advocate or promote genocide; incite hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace;

To treat all identifiable groups fairly and promote in those groups a sense of their security and safety in the Canadian community.

How Sarah Palinish of you...

Only a Sarah Palin fan would reach that conclusion.

The scorn is all in your little mind. You must have been looking the other way when the idiot Tea Baggers got to your part of town...

I support trigonometry.

Thats because the Republicans have managed to convince the unwashed ignorant public out there that liberals are the same thing as communists.

Your comparison is poppycock. It has an Ann Coulter ring to it. Lots of people on the left dont support abortions and lots of people on the right support abortions. Go figure. I support the womans choice.

It was. I had my tongue in my cheek in asking if any Dems did that kinda stuff....

Ya but how many democrats were caught playing footsie in a men's airport washroom? Now there was a scandal by golly!

The substantive law in Canada respecting habeas corpus and other prerogative writs or forms of judicial relief was derived from the laws of England and Wales and still contains many similar substantive features. However, Canada has developed its own procedures for applying the principles of habeas corpus.

There are other documents that relate to Canada's development as a country, such as those predating Confederation, which do not hold the force of law

Horsepucky..

Unlike the majority of countries whose basic law derives from one document, Canada's basic law derives not only from a set of documents known as Constitution Acts, but also a set of unwritten laws and conventions. This comprises of all the acts passed since 1867 up to and including 1998. As a result, all constitutional documents during that time period have the force of law. Amongst those documents cited, there are other important documents worth mentioning also, that have to do in one way or another with the development of Canada's constitution, as well as that of the country. A few of these are the London Resolutions of 1866 and the Quebec Sign Law, Bill 178 of 1988, as well as the Federal law binding Parliament to use a self-imposed constitutional amending formula. There are other documents that relate to Canada's development as a country, such as those predating Confederation, which do not hold the force of law, as each act was superseded by the other until the passing and proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1867. Some of these documents include the Charter of Hudson's Bay, the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the Quebec Act, 1774. Cheers,

Rick Hansen seems to be in the news as a candidate...

OK. Please cite the law in 1760 Canada (or even 1860) regarding plotting against minorities.

If you take out the lying part...I can name the days...

This a great opportunity for Harper remove Helena Guergis from cabinet.

Canada's law books arent centuries old...

Not in Canada.