TORONTO — A Liberal backbencher who introduced an anti-Islamophobia motion that unanimously passed the Ontario legislature Thursday says, despite all-party support, she has received racist backlash.
The motion from Nathalie Des Rosiers called on the legislature to “stand against all forms of hatred, hostility, prejudice, racism and intolerance,” rebuke a “growing tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments” and condemn all forms of Islamophobia.
It passed as the federal government weighs a similar motion that has sparked controversy in the House of Commons and beyond.
Des Rosiers introduced the provincial motion Dec. 1 in response to incidents in her Ottawa-Vanier riding such as anti-Muslim graffiti, and young women wearing hijabs who were spat on, she said. It took on extra urgency after six men were shot to death at a mosque in Quebec, she said.
“You don’t want discrimination to become internalized, for people to stop seeing themselves as full citizens, as having the ability to contribute fully in a society, and that’s the reason you need to denounce hatred and discrimination,” Des Rosiers said.
Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, who is Muslim, said Muslims and Canadians across the country were shaken by the violence at the mosque.
“The day after the shooting in Quebec a father called my community office asking in the morning is it safe for him to send his son to school,” he said. “That’s not the society we live in. That’s not the society we’re building. Parents should not be fearful for a nanosecond whether they should send their children to school because of their faith. It’s real.
So here’s the story as I see it https://ca.news.yahoo.com/anti-islamophobia-motion-expected-pass-153649394.html
Be very afraid that this will not stop here
Just know this, this is unconstitutional and illegal and beyond their remit
Under section 319, an accused is not guilty:
A) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
B) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
C) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
D) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Further to that I think there a couple of problems with section #319
First – It clearly undermines section #2 of “The Charter”
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press
and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly and d) freedom of association.
This is a clear amendment, adjustment, I don’t care what words you use but section #319 disputes that right (that’s a problem, I will explain why later)
But there is another equally awkward problem as well
Section #11d of “The Charter”
11. Any persons charged with an offence has the right
. (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
. (b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
. (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that
person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
Article 11d of “The Charter as you can clearly see states that you are in fact”innocent until proven guilty”
(Which as most of us, I’m sure know, that’s common law which is British law)
However, in section #319 of the criminal code, it does not say that
Under section 319, an accused is not guilty:
- A) if he establishes
- B) if, in good faith,
- C) if the statements were relevant
- D) if, in good faith,
This is, not the same as, (innocent) unless you can prove otherwise (not the same)
Finally and most important is where this all comes from
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) was enacted in 1984 and it effectively replaced the Bill of Rights of 1960. Although many of the same rights and freedoms are protected by the Charter as by the Bill of Rights, the Charter enhances the protections provided to Canadians by increasing the number and the extent of our rights and freedoms. In addition, the Charter now forms part of our Constitution, making it difficult for future governments to decrease or limit the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy. It applies when the government tries to infringe upon the rights of Canadians.
A look back: In the 1960s and 1970s, Canadian political issues often focused on discontent in Quebec over language and social policy and the concern in the western provinces over natural resources. By May 1980, it seemed apparent to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau that a renewed effort for constitutional change was needed — Quebec had issued a referendum on sovereignty-association. Many in the province wanted Quebec to become a separate country.
To keep Quebec within Confederation, Prime Minister Trudeau assured the province its rights would be protected under a new constitutional arrangement. In October of 1980, without the support of eight provinces, Prime Minister Trudeau requested that the British government amend the BNA Act by adding an amending formula and a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By November 1981, the Prime Minister had brought nine provinces on board. Quebec, still not happy, held out. In April of 1982, the amendments were signed off by Queen Elizabeth II and the constitution of Canada officially became our own. The process of “bringing home” the Constitution from Britain is called patriation.
Here is the definition of our constitution
The constitution of Canada contains the Canada Act, 1982, which has two parts: the Constitution Act,1982 and the British North America Act, 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act, 1867).
It is the Constitution Act, 1982 that contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Because the Charter is part of the constitution, no part of it can be changed by a federal or provincial government. The House of Commons, the Senate, and two thirds of the provinces representing over 50 percent of Canadians must approve any changes to the Charter or any part of the constitution.
The Charter is part of the Constitution period.
This cannot be altered in any way without following the rules!
So my main point is simple ANY AMENDMENT to “The Charter” has to follow those rules
I believe section #319 of the criminal code clearly is contradicting and attempting to amend add, whatever you want to call. It trying to restrict what section #2 of the charter says and reverse admittance of guilt or otherwise which directly contradicts “The charter”
This very act Criminal code Section #319 is unconstitutional because if it stands then any or all of ‘The Charter’ could theory could be altered just by passing a new law in parliament. That is NOT what it says in ‘The Chater’ says or the Constitution!