Zionofascism Crippled

Just a Deleted WordPress.com weblog

Thoughtcrime Laws Not Welcomed by Canadians

Posted by Anarchore on June 23, 2007

By Karen Gordon (Stolen from newsgroup can.politics) June 23, 2007

(K): The Jewish organizations in Canada are like fleas onto a dog when it
comes to anything that they consider ‘derogatory’ against Jews.
They care little for the nuances of the laws in Canada – they’re sending
signals that their faction will not tolerate ANY criticism, in any degree,
at any time. And they use the Holocaust as their flag for their actions.

In fact, they had no case against Ahenakew for what he said. Here’s the
decision that the Supreme Court of Canada came to when James Keegstra was
charged under the Hate Law of our Criminal Code – mainly section 319(2)….

On reading s. 319(1), one is immediately struck by the words “in a public
place.” On its face, the provision would appear to prohibit the
communication of all proscribed statements in a public area, regardless of
the context in which those statements are made. In other words, even when
the statements are made within the context of a private conversation, if
that conversation occurs in a public place, then the offence is triggered.
Support for this interpretation can be found in the Keegstra decision.
Dickson C.J. writing for the majority, said in reference to subsection (2):

“that the legislation excludes private conversation, rather than including
communications made in a public forum, suggests that the expression of
hatred in a place accessible to the public is not sufficient to activate
the legislation…Section 319(1) covers statements communicated “in a
public place”, suggesting that a wider scope of prohibition was intended
where the danger occasioned by the statements was of an immediate nature,
while the wording of s. 319(2) indicates that private conversations taking
place in public areas are not prohibited.”

(K): Where the judge in Ahenakew’s case erred, was that he decided the
conversation between the reporter and Ahenakew was NOT a ‘private
conversation’. Read the conversation and see if you feel it was or wasn’t
a private conversation……..

[5] Approximately one hour after the speech, Mr. James Parker, a
reporter with the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, approached a table where Mr.
Ahenakew was seated and asked if he could interview him. Mr. Ahenakew
agreed, and they moved to an adjacent table. Mr. Parker tape recorded the
conversation, and the transcript was introduced in evidence along with the

The transcript reads as follows:

Q (reporter) You agree with them.

A (Ahenakew) The Jews own damn near owned all of Germany.
Prior to the war. That, thats how Hitler came in, that he was gonna make
damn sure that the Jews didnt take over Germany or Europe. Thats why he fried
six million of those guys, you know.

Q Okay. D’you think that it was a good thing that he, that he killed six
million Jews? Isnt that a horrible thing?

A Well, Jews, Jews owned the goddamn world and look at what theyre doing.
Theyre killing people in the Arab countries. I was there, I was there.

Q I know, but how can you justify the holocaust? Six million?

A You know, how, how do you get rid of a, a, a, you know, a disease like
that thats gonna take over, that’s gonna dominate, that’s gonna everything,
and the poor people, they…

Q How were they taking over Germany? How were they taking over Germany?

A They owned the banks, they owned the factories, they owned everything.
They loaned money out to the peasants knowing damn well that they cant pay
it back so they took their land.

Q Well, how is it that the Germans mounted a war effort without the Jews
because the Jews by that time were gone, because a lot of the German
companies were owned by Germans. And Im talking about Krupe (phonetic).

A In name only.

Q But the Krupe.

A In name only.

Q Krupe have made ah, some of the best guns for the German army, ah, those
various chemical companies that were owned by, I mean, the Germans owned
the German economy.

A Well, I’m not gonna argue with you about the Jews.

Q Okay.

A Or the Germans or anybody else. All I know is that the Germans told me
when I was there two years.

Q And you believe them.

A Of course I believe them.

Q But they, weren’t…

A Well, because I saw the Jews kill people in, in the Egypt when I was over
there. And the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the, the Arabs, generally, eh.
I saw them fucking dominate everything.

Q But wasn’t Canadian army, ah, over in Europe to, to liberate the Jews, in
a sense?

A No, no, no, to liberate the world, not the Jews.

Q To liberate the world (inaudible)…

A We didnt give a damn about the Jews.

Q But to liberate the world from a dictatorship that was killing people,
killing Jews, killing gypsies, killing homosexuals, killing all sorts of

A Exactly. Wanna clean up the world. I, I don’t support Hitler but I…

Q Thats what it sounds like.

A Well, you know, he cleaned up a hell of a lot of things, didn’t he? You’d
be, you’d be dominated by, you’d be owned by the Jews right now the world
over. Look at a small little country like that and everybody supports them,
the States, who in the hell owns many of the banks in the States, many of the
corporations, many, well, look it here in Canada, ASPER.

Q Yeah.

A (Inaudible) ASPER, he controls the media.

Q Yeah.

A Well, what the hell does that tell you? You know,that’s power.

Q Well, what does it tell you?

A Thats fucking power.

Q What, what, yeah, so hes a Jewish man that owns a bunch of newspapers but
there are, there are English people, there are (inaudible). There are
non-Jews that own the media companies, there are non-Jews that…

A Anyway, anyway, to hell with the Jews. I cant stand them and that’s it.

Q Okay.

A Don’t talk about them.

Q Okay.

[6] At trial the appellant conceded that he had made the foregoing
statements to Mr. Parker and agreed that persons of the Jewish faith are an
identifiable group within the meaning of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

[7] With respect to whether the statements made by the appellant to Mr.
Parker were made in private conversation, the trial judge concluded:

[12] “As with the previous statements made by you to the
conference attendees, the relative issues are whether there
was a private conversation between yourself and Mr. Parker and
whether you, Mr. Ahenakew, intended by these statements to wilfully
promote hatred against people of the Jewish faith.

Throughout your testimony at trial you went to
considerable pains to distinguish your verbal
interaction with Mr. Parker to be something other
than an interview for publication. While there can be
occasions where a private conversation is
conducted at a public meeting where two people talk
discretely and do not intended be overheard such is
not the case here. You were well aware, Mr.
Ahenakew, that Mr. Parker was a reporter even if, as
you testified, you could not remember him from a
previous person to person interview. You knew from
the time that he approached you and Vice-Chief
Daniels that this was Mr. Parker of the Star Phoenix
who had written critical columns on First Nations
affairs. You knew that reporters do exactly what their
job title describes, that is report. They report what
they personally see and hear and what other people
tell them. That was particularly true in the case of
Mr. Parker, whose reputation was to investigate and
report First Nation issues in a critical manner.

[13] Mr. Ahenakew, you also testified that you had
participated in approximately 1000 media interviews
both by local and national press. The defence
attempted to make an issue of whether you were
aware that Mr. Parker had a tape recorder during the
interview. In the opinion of the court, it is irrelevant
whether Mr. Parker had a tape recorder, a pencil
and a reporters note pad or simply intended to rely
on his own recollection of what was said during the
interview. The tape recording simply adds to the
reliability of Mr. Parkers recollection and recitation
of the actual interview. There is a substantial
difference between a private conversation and a [sic]
interview, a difference that you, Mr. Ahenakew, from
your experience with the media, knew well. …”

[16] “I find that the interview of December 13, 2002
conducted by Mr. James Parker of the Saskatoon
Star Phoenix with David Ahenakew was not a
private conversation within the meaning of
section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

(K): The judge basically ruled that no conversation with a reporter can be
construed as a ‘private conversation’. How stupid is that? One would
have to be very careful if married to one…..

And the bloody Hate Laws, introduced into Canada’s criminal code primarily
from efforts of the Jewish groups, have violated this basic right we have
under the Charter….


Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms


1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed
by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.


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.

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen

related: http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/canadian-jewish-congress-adl-issue-apology-to-ahenakew/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: