CAFE CALLS ON MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOT TO REINTRODUCE SEC 13 — INTERNET CENSORSHIP

CAFE CALLS ON MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOT TO REINTRODUCE SEC 13 — INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;

Website http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

 

June 21, 2019

 

Hon. David Lametti,

Minister of Justice,

House of Commons,

Ottawa, ON.,

K1A 0A6

 

Dear Minister Lametti:

 

RE: Please Don’t Reintroduce Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code

 

I read in the National Post (June 20, 2019) that  you are considering “very carefully” a recommendation by the Commons Justice Committee to reintroduce the discredited Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which was repealed by Parliament in 2013. Please don’t do it.

 

Sec. 13 made it a discriminatory practice to repeatedly communicate over the Internet material that is “likely to expose to hatred or contempt” a long list of privileged groups.

 

I represented a number of the victims of this section at Tribunals. Our organization the Canadian Association for Free Expression participated in a number of other Tribunals including the very complex Warman v Lemire.

 

In practice, Sec. 13 meant certain groups  were virtually immune from criticism. While hatred is a very strong emotion, contempt is merely the result of  negative commentary. To take  a neutral example, were I to say smokers had bad breath, discoloured teeth, stained fingers, smelled and ran added risks of cancer or strokes, I would not be exposing smokers to hatred. I wouldn’t be asking anyone to hate smokers but I would certainly be creating an unfavourable impression of them, and, thus, exposing them to contempt. Thus, were smokers a privileged groups, I’d risk a conviction under Sec. 13.

 

As time went on, Tribunal rulings held that it was not necessary to prove that anyone actually felt or expressed hatred or contempt as a result of the impugned posting. In the Lemire case, logs showed that only five people had ever even read one impugned post. Surely a case of de minimis! It also emerged that truth was not a defence, sincerely held religious belief was not a defence nor was opinion or commentary.

 

Indeed, there actually were no defences, except, perhaps, that the accused person had not posted the controversial material in question. Thus, until the Lemire case, Sec. 13 had a one hundred per cent conviction rate. This would rival the vile legal system of North Korea!

 

After 2001, when Sec. 13 was amended to specifically include material on the Internet, one individual, Richard Warman, a driven “anti-Nazi” campaigner and sometime employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, made the bulk of the complaints, turning it into an industry and, at times a profitable one too for, should the victim post criticisms of Mr. Warman after he filed a complaint, he would then allege retaliation, which exposed the victim to a punitive fine.

 

Sec. 13 was only used against people seen to be on the “right” of the political spectrum. No person expressing strident opinions against Christians or Europeans was ever prosecuted.

 

Much is made of so-called “hate speech” on the Internet. The Internet is not a free for all. Postings expressing extreme hatred can and have been prosecuted under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. Those who denounce “hate speech” are using a loaded term to demonize views they don’t like. The accusation of “hate speech” tells you little about the content of the impugned material but does tell you that it is material the accuser hates!

 

The Internet allows a much greater range of views and commentary and a more free wheeling debate, especially on such volatile issues as immigration, than usually appears in Canada’s fairly controlled press that tends to limit the range of acceptable opinions. Such freedom and the divergent voices being heard are upsetting to people who would like a much more controlled public discourse.

 

I have seen lives ruined by Sec. 13 — huge fines and life-long “cease and desist orders” that have the force of a Federal Court order. I have seen individuals jailed for nothing more than the non-violent expression of their political views.

 

I urge you to choose freedom. Reject calls for the reintroduction of Sec. 13. Yes, there is some extreme, foolish and insulting material on the Internet. Open discussion and debate tend to isolate and  expose such postings. Canada needs more speech and debate not less. Do not bring back Sec. 13.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

Paul Fromm

Director

 

 

 

 

Penguin orders independent review of book over antisemitism claims

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/17/penguin-pedro-banos-how-they-rule-

Penguin orders independent review of book over antisemitism claims

Alison Flood

Julia Neuberger to analyse Pedro Baños’s How They Rule the World, which includes passages about the Rothschild family

‘Clearly expresses robust opinions’ … Pedro Baños

Penguin Random House has asked Rabbi Baroness Julia Neuberger to independently review one of its books, Pedro Baños’s How They Rule the World, after allegations of antisemitism made against the author continue to grow.

Concerns had been raised over imprint Ebury’s decision to cut 30,000 words from the English-language edition of the Spanish book, including passages about the Rothschild family, a banking dynasty often subject to antisemitic conspiracy theories. Baños, a colonel in the Spanish army, had also called the Rothschilds “dominant” and has compared them to the Illuminati in interviews. The cover of both the English and Spanish editions also features octopus tentacles – imagery long associated with antisemitism.

Ebury said last week that it had undertaken a thorough review into the book and concluded that while the author “clearly expresses robust opinions”, they had found no evidence of antisemitism. But on Friday, Ebury asked Neuberger to conduct an external review of both the English language and a translation of the Spanish edition of the book, along with any other aspects that she feels are relevant to making an overall assessment. Neuberger – author of Antisemitism: What It Is. What It Isn’t. Why It Matters – was also asked by the publisher to consult with a small number of other independent experts.

Neuberger, who has not finished her review, told Radio 4 on Monday that the UK edition of the book was definitely not antisemitic and said it was unfair to describe the tentacle imagery as antisemitic, saying it had been used to denote people controlling other people since the 19th century.

Looking at the 30,000 words cut from the Spanish edition, she said Baños’ writing “betray[s] a sort of fascination” with the Rothschilds, “that they’re very powerful and very rich and sort of secretive”.

She told the Today programme: “It’s not antisemitic in itself, but it hints at stuff about the Jewish conspiracies: powerful, half-hidden, secretive groups mainly of Jewish men bankers. That all goes back to something called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a fake – it was proved to be a fake actually in London in 1921 – but nevertheless it keeps reappearing..

“I think what would push it over the line is if he’s known to have made lots of allusions, if you like, to some kind of Jewish conspiracy. Because that is antisemitism. I think where people allege that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the world or control banking or whatever it is, that is antisemitism … because it evokes the stuff about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and we know that that itself is pretty nasty.”

She said there were some questions to be asked about the edits that were made, and that Baños’s past needed to be looked at more closely.

Penguin Random House chief executive Tom Weldon said the external review was “an unusual step, which is a mark of how seriously we view the complaints made and the complexity and sensitivity of the issues involved”.

He added: “We will give full consideration to the review and any conclusions and recommendations it makes within the context of our long-held commitment to publish responsibly across a spectrum of opinion and a diversity of voices.”

 

the-world-julia-neuberger-antisemitism-claims

theguardian.com

WHATCOTT HATE CRIMES AND PRAYER NEEDS UPDATE

Whatcott hate crimes and prayer needs update

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:25 pm

Dear Friends,

My next court date is Tuesday, June 25th, 2019 at the Ontario Superior Court, 361 University St, Toronto. My lawyer requested I be at the Superior Court for 9:30 am.

Please continue to pray for my case. For those who don’t know, I have been charged with a hate crime for infiltrating the Toronto Homosexual Shame parade with the Gospel and accurate information on the negative health and spiritual implications of homosexuality while disguised as a “gay” zombie. You can read about our charitable, clever, and Gospel oriented stunt here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526

My counsel has informed me the Crown Prosecutor is seeking 18 months in prison.

Anyways, the oppression against those Christians who dare to speak out against Sodom is getting worse in Canada and it is not only me who is facing criminal charges now.

A Christian Street Preacher by the name of David Lynn is facing criminal charges for politely preaching the Gospel in Toronto’s homosexual district. His charge is a fairly minor summary offense (Causing a Disturbance) and he won’t be going to jail, but still the fact he is facing criminal charges at all for the polite preaching that you can see in the video below is a testament to the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada as the LGBT agenda advances in all aspects of our society.


When you remember to pray for me, also please remember to pray for justice for David Lynn.

Please also pray for my friend Brother Phil, and the other Christian brothers involved in this confrontation.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9440 … lebration/

To put it bluntly the Hamilton Spectator and the NDP politician quoted in this story are speading fake news AKA lying. I know Brother Phil and have preached with him and his friends before. They did not come to the parade to start a fight. Though you wouldn’t know it from this fake news story, actually Antifa came to the Hamilton parade prepared for a fight and indeed they started it. Brother Phil was punched several times in the face and was swarmed by multiple Antifa members. To what I could gather Phil was hurt but never hit back and because it was at least 3 on one, might not even have been able to hit back if he wanted. Some of the other Christian brothers did fight back to defend themselves after extreme provocations.

Sadly, I doubt the police or the courts will be interested in the truth. It seems the media and political establishment are trying to use this disturbing incident as a pretext to shut down legitimate dissent on issues such as homosexual activism and uncontrolled immigration. In the news article the left is calling for right wing and socially conservative protests to be banned in front of city hall.

In my past experience dealing with Antifa (once they attacked my preaching venue in Calgary in 2017 and more than 100 of them attacked a pro-life rally I helped organize at Queen’s Park in 1999) is even though they injured people on my side, used weapons on both occassions, and at my Toronto demonstation even attacked the police and injured one of their horses; the Antifa thugs never went to trial and were never convicted of any crimes. Christians who speak out against abortion and homosexuality on the other hand do go to jail in this country, even when they are completely non violent. I fear charges will be laid against the Christian brothers who defended themselves, but we will not see a single homosexual activist or Antifa member get charged with anything even though the far left thugs punched the preachers repeatedly and destroyed their property. Please pray for these brothers and for our country.

After I left the law office today, I bicycled down Queen Street West and I noted how prolific and open the homosexual propaganda was on the private businesses in Toronto’s west side.

Image
Urban Barn home furniture store has queered their window

Image
Toronto’s pizza stores have jumped on the queer bandwagon too

Image
Even Soufi’s Syrian Arab restaurant wants to appear pro-LGBT. Note the women in conservative Muslim attire chatting in the window while the business has a sign above the door advertising its self as “676 Queer St. West”

These businesses are a small sampling of the numerous business seeking to identify themselves with LGBT activism in Toronto’s west end. Perhaps as many as a 1/3 of the businesses are openly promoting homosexuality on Queen Street between Bay and Bathurst Streets.

Many Torontotonions claim either there is no God or if they believe in the existance of a god, their god has no relevance to their lives. However, the reality is if someone gets rid of the real God it seems they will replace the real God with something else. The new religion in Toronto as far as I can tell is LGBT. This new god will not satisfy Toronto’s spiritual needs, but in their mad rush to worship at the false god’s altar many lives will be ruined and in the process many fundamental freedoms will be lost.

“Blessed is the one who trusts in the LORD, who does not look to the proud, to those who turn aside to false gods.”
Psalm 40:4

OCLA opposes the international campaign to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of antisemitismO

OCLA opposes the international campaign to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of antisemitism

The OCLA endorses the recently expressed position of the BCCLA.

Whereas the OCLA and the BCCLA (and the CCLA) are distinct and separate organizations, the OCLA nonetheless also opposes the international campaign to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is targeting all levels of government in Canada, as well as universities, police, and other authorities.

In this context, the OCLA opposes the “hate speech” provisions of the Criminal Code. The said provisions are distinct from the “threat of violence”, “harassment” and “coercion” provisions, are contrary to international law, remove the State’s onus to prove actual harm to any actual specific victim, and are incompatible with democratic values. Further, the said provisions are susceptible to erosion and practical abuse from political campaigns such as the IHRA campaign.

The OCLA has the position that the State should stay clear of societal debates, no matter how distasteful or “harmful” some participants may find expressed opinions and beliefs. There is no body of science that establishes a causal link between negative or extreme views expressed in society at large and individual or mass crimes. Advancing such a link is equivalent to advancing any other baseless pretext for State censorship.

You-Tube – Bring back the ‘Brian Ruhe Show’ — Sign the Petition

You-Tube – Bring back the ‘Brian Ruhe Show’ — Sign the Petition

YouTube is killing free speech.  Interesting commentators – such as Brian Ruhe (The Brian Ruhe Show) – are being deleted. We all benefits from learning from others, so lets support those good people, such as Brian Ruhe, that are only guilty of voicing their opinions and giving others a platform to do the same.

 https://www.change.org/p/youtube-freedom-of-speach-support-truth-speakers-you-tube-bring-back-the-brian-ruhe-show?

Reasons for signing

Sign this petition and be the first to add your comment.

How Captain Airhead Makes Andrew Scheer Look Much Better Than He Really Is

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, June 13, 2019

How Captain Airhead Makes Andrew Scheer Look Much Better Than He Really Is

The Conservative Party of Canada really ought to be paying Captain Airhead a salary. He is the best publicity man they have. He has been doing a much better job of promoting their cause in the upcoming Dominion election than their own lackluster leadership. I do not mean merely that he makes them look good by being such a lousy, awful, and indeed, downright, horrible, alternative, although that is certainly the case. What I mean is that if there were a speck of truth to be found in any of his recent, scare-mongering, accusations against the Conservatives, the party would certainly rise in my esteem as it would that of any sensible and sane person. Evelyn Waugh once said that the problem with the Conservative Party was that it “has not turned the clock back a single second” and the Canadian incarnation of the party has given no indication that it plans to do so any time in the near future. Yet Justin Trudeau would have us believe that the Conservatives, if elected, would set the clock back by about a hundred years. My response to which is to say that if this happens, it would be a good start, but we need to go much further than that.

To say this, of course, is to commit the unpardonable sin of the Modern Age, blasphemy against the spirit of progress. It is a sin to which I gladly, and unrepentantly, plead guilty. Readers of C. S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia might recall how in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Governor Gumpas of the Lone Islands, upon being told by King Caspian that the slave trade “must be stopped”, protests “But that would be putting the clock back”, adding “Have you no idea of progress, of development?” to which Caspian replies “I have seen then both in an egg…We call it ‘Going Bad’ in Narnia.” Needless to say, I subscribe to Caspian’s – and Lewis’ – view of progress. This is the view of genuine British and Canadian Toryism – that progress does not happen, and if it does it is a bad thing and we need to put a stop to it. Sadly, the Canadian Conservative Party of our day, like the British Conservative Party of Waugh’s day, have abandoned the more authentic views of their tradition for something closer to American republicanism, which worships at the altar of the same idol of progress as liberalism and the Left. Justin Trudeau is deluded if he seriously thinks otherwise.

I am not going to dwell at any length on Trudeau’s accusations that Andrew Scheer is in bed with “racists”, “white supremacists” and “white nationalists” as I have already dealt with this in another essay. It shows how extremely unhealthy, the political climate has become in present day Canada, that these labels can be attached to people who do not so describe themselves and who neither subscribe to a racialist ideology like National Socialism nor have engaged in violent rhetoric or action either as individuals or organized groups towards other races. All that one needs to do is to oppose a particular kind of racism – the anti-white racism manifested in the immigration policy of making the country as diverse as possible as fast as possible and hence as least white as possible as fast as possible, in the progressive notion that all whites and only whites are racists, and in the cartoonish re-writing of history into a bad melodrama in which whites are assigned the role of the moustache-twirling, villain in the top hat and large black coat and everyone else plays the helpless maiden whom he has tied to the railroad track. Heck, one does not even have to actively oppose this anti-white racism himself – it is sufficient to be seen in the same room as someone who does. My respect for Mr. Scheer and the Conservative Party would skyrocket if they actually did take a bold, consistent, and principled stand against this pervasive form of progressive anti-white racism, but I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. The accusations against them are entirely of the “you were seen with so-and-so, who said such-and-such” variety. Indeed, the disgusting manner in which Scheer threw Michael Cooper under the bus, the fact that he seems to have enforced silence upon his party about the Grits’ disturbing plans to bring back the vile Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the way in which Warren Kinsella, of all people, has been defending Scheer against Trudeau’s charges using arguments amusingly similar to those that I would have used to ridicule Kinsella’s book Web of Hate twenty years ago, all point inevitably to the conclusion that Scheer, like Harper before him, is on the same side as Trudeau on these issues, leaving the many Canadians who wish for the freedom to think differently from Kinsella, Richard Warman, Bernie Farber, Harry Abrams, Helmut-Harry Loewen and others of that ilk, without anyone in Parliament to speak for them.

What I am more interested in addressing here are Captain Airhead’s accusations of what he considers to be sexism. Back when Stephen Harper was Conservative leader the Liberals were constantly accusing him of having a “hidden agenda,” i.e., to re-criminalize abortion. Trudeau, who has constructed a political image of himself as a “male feminist” which has taken a severe beating over the last couple of years for reasons that I will not get into here, and who as part of that image takes a rather clownish, over-the-top, hard-line, “it’s a woman’s right” stance on abortion, has revived the old “hidden agenda” line for use against Scheer. He has been able to use recent events south of the border, where several states have passed strong anti-abortion legislation now that there is a perceived right-wing majority on the Supreme Court in the hopes of provoking a legal battle that will end in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to help him stoke the fears of his feminist support base.

Again, if there were the slightest amount of truth to Trudeau’s accusations, the Conservative Party’s stock would certainly rise in my books. I remember very well, however, that while Stephen Harper allowed pro-life people to run for his party at a time even as the other major party leaders began telling them they were persona non grata, this was the extent of his “support” for the pro-life cause. Pro-life people were allowed to run as Conservatives but woe unto them if they actually tried to do something to end abortion. There is not the slightest amount of evidence that things are any different now. This is extremely unfortunate for Canada because the current status quo on abortion, of which Trudeau is so proud, is an ever growing bloodstain on our country that cries out to heaven for divine justice, and there are no realistic options for changing that status quo, that do not require action by the Conservatives in the Dominion parliament. Even if it could be accomplished at the provincial level, which it cannot, the provincial Conservatives seem to have no more inclination to do so than their federal counterparts. The right-populist premier of Upper Canada assured the media last month, after progressives threw a tantrum when one of his MPPs pledged at a pro-life rally “to make abortion unthinkable in our lifetime” that his government “will not re-open the abortion debate.” Even more recently the provincial Conservative government here in Manitoba has announced that an abortion pill will now be fully covered by the public. There are many health care products and services which are necessary to help people who are suffering from excruciating pain or are in danger of going blind which are not fully covered by the public, but a pill that murders babies soon will be.

It is difficult to think of anything that puts the lie to the entire left-liberal concept of progress more than this matter of abortion. The progressive position is that a pregnant woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. Canadian progressives, including the leadership of the Liberal Party, take the most extreme degree of this position, which allows for no qualifications such as “up to this-or-that stage of development”, insists that this “right” be protected against even interference of the persuasive variety, requires that the public pay for it, insists that the debate is closed and that the other side should be made to shut up, and boasts that their victory shows how advanced we have become in our thinking. Their entire position, however, is based upon a lie. The position that a woman has or ought to have the right to terminate her pregnancy could scarcely be formulated, much less justified, apart from the notion that the pregnancy is something that concerns her, her body, and her health alone. “Pro-choice” lingo such as “the procedure”, “reproductive rights”, “control of her own body” is all carefully selected to create this impression. Yet, obviously, pregnancy is not simply a matter of a woman, her health, and her body. It also concerns her baby, whose very life is at stake in the pregnancy. An abortion is not merely a medical procedure undergone for the health of the pregnant woman. It is the termination of the life of a baby.

Far from being an advanced state of ethical thinking the so-called “pro-choice” position of the progressive left is a regression into the darkest form of paganism. In the times of ancient paganism, infanticide was not an uncommon way of keeping the family within the means of its resources. The story of Oedipus is but one of the ancient legends that address the cruelty of the practice of exposure by telling of a child rescued from this fate by a kindly couple. Worse, the worship of several pagan idols required the sacrifice of children, usually the first-born. Several of the most important ethicists of ancient Greece and Rome condemned this practice in Carthage, the city-state in what is now Tunisia in northern Africa which was Rome’s rival for control of the Mediterranean world in the third and fourth centuries BC. The Carthaginians would sacrifice their children to an idol, whom the Greek and Roman commentators identified with Kronos or Saturn from their own mythologies, by placing them in the heated arms of a huge bronze statue. This is a practice they inherited from Tyre, the Phoenician city-state in what is now Lebanon, of which Carthage was originally a colony. The Phoenicians shared this practice with their southern neighbours, the tribes of Canaan, and this practice is clearly identified in the Old Testament as one of the worst forms of the wickedness that brought divine judgement upon the Canaanites in the form of Israel being sent to conquer and drive them out of the Promised Land. Later, when the Israelites apostatized into the idolatry of their neighbours, this practice is again pointed to by the Prophets as having particularly defiled their land and led ultimately to the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. A curse was pronounced upon the place outside Jerusalem where these sacrifices took place and by the time of the New Testament it was regarded as a defiled place, fit only for burning refuse and the bodies of criminals, and lent its name to the fate of those to be condemned at the Final Judgement.

Even before the Exodus, and the giving of the Mosaic Law which strictly forbade the Israelites from participating in the abominations of Canaan, such as child sacrifice, and required that they redeem their firstborn with animal sacrifices instead, the Book of Genesis draws a contrast between the true and living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the false gods of the pagans. God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, but prevents him from actually going through with the sacrifice, for it is faith and not his son, that God wanted from Abraham. Abraham, when asked by Isaac where the lamb for the sacrifice is, makes the prophecy that God Himself will provide a lamb, a prophecy that we see fulfilled in the New Testament when John the Baptist, speaking of Jesus, says “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The pagan idols, who are really devils, require their worshippers to sacrifice their children, the true and living God, gave His only-begotten Son as the sacrificial Lamb Who would take away the sin of the world.

As the Christian religion grew and spread throughout the ancient world, its influence led, among other things, to the Roman Empire’s finally banning infanticide. If anything actually deserves to be described as an enlightened ethical step forward in the right direction this was it. By using this language to describe the revival of pagan baby murder, the Left demonstrates just how much its concept of “progress” really is King Caspian’s “going bad” after all. It also reveals itself to be just another form of ancient, pagan, devil worship.

The question for Andrew Scheer and the Conservative Party is, what God do you serve? Scheer, who was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, claims to be a Christian but this is also the case with Justin Trudeau. As long as Scheer, like his predecessor Harper, prevents the members of his party from actively combating the evil of baby murder and instead requires them to join in the loony Left’s crusade against its chimerical bugbear of “white racism”, it is not the true and living God that he is serving.

Fortunately for him, he has Justin Trudeau to make him look so much better than he really is. How much better for us, it would be, however, if instead of relying on this, he were to come out and take a bold stand on the things for which the Conservative Party ought to be standing. He could start by promising the turn the clock back a century and a half, to right after Confederation before the Liberal Party got their grubby hands on the country and things started to go downhill.

Man who praised Quebec mosque shooter in online videos gets 30 days in jail

Man who praised Quebec mosque shooter in online videos gets 30 days in jail

LAVAL, Que. — A Quebec man who was found guilty last May of inciting hatred against Muslims has been sentenced to 30 days in jail.

The sentence handed to Pierre Dion of Terrebonne, Que., Tuesday went beyond what the Crown had recommended.

Quebec court Judge Gilles Garneau sentenced the 49-year-old man today at the courthouse in Laval, opting for a stricter sentence to send a message of dissuasion to the community.

Dion published two videos of himself this year on Jan. 28 and 29 — the two-year anniversary of an attack on a Quebec City mosque that left six dead.

In the videos he praised the convicted killer and urged Canadians to “kick Muslims out of the country.” He was arrested two days later.

The Crown had recommended a sentence of community service while the defence had suggested 18 months of probation, strict restrictions on internet usage and a $1,500 donation to a Muslim organization.

Garneau instead ordered incarceration to be served one day a week beginning June 21.

When the verdict came down on May 22, Garneau said there wasn’t any doubt to him the accused’s remarks were directed at an identifiable group as indicated in Criminal Code provisions covering hate speech — in this case, Muslims.