In Canada, promotion of hate propaganda by groups is a criminal offence punishable by two years imprisonment, it is a criminal offence. It became a criminal offence after there was an amendment on the Criminal Code in 1970 to include the anti-hate provisions. This provision had been promoted earlier in 1965 by the Special Committee Report on Hate Propaganda in Canada (Braun, 2004). This is a blue ribbon panel that was chaired and headed by McGil Law Dean. It was later headed by International Court of Justice, Judge Maxwell Cohen and later headed by the later to be Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau. The three people committee examined exhaustively the effects of hate propaganda and came up with a legislative response.
The Canadian Customs Act has been able to block the act of importing of hate literature into the country. The hate propaganda discussion has centered most of the discussions on s.318-320 of the Criminal Code. Under s.318 of the Criminal Code anyone who promotes or advocates for genocide is guilty of an offence and is punishable by five years’ imprisonment(Minister of Justice., & Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, 1966). ‘Genocide’ in this case means killing members of  certain group or intentionally inflicting on an particular group conditions of life that once calculated will bring about the physical destruction of the group in question. Section 313 (4) of the Criminal Code definition of an identifiable group is any section of the public that is identifiable by color, religion, race or any other ethnic origin.
Under the s. 319(1) of the Criminal Code anybody who communicates statements in the public that are intended to incite hatred against an identifiable group in the society and the incitement causes a breach of peace is punishable by 2 years’ imprisonment or gets a précis conviction offence. Section 319 (2) defines communication with other people a crime except in private conversations statements that would willfully promote hatred in the identifiable group(Minister of Justice., & Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, 1966). Section 319(7) definition of communicating includes communicating by the telephone, audible or visible means, broadcasting or any other way where the public might pick some pieces from the communication and use it to cause hatred or fighting.
Some of these cases that have been filed in the Canadian Courts are;
Citizen v. Canadian Jewish Congress, 2000 BCSC 737 (CanLII). The plaintiff was the
Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform and the defendants were Canadian Jewish Congress and Michael Eterman. The plaintiff was claiming for damages for defamation by the Canadian Jewish Congress (The Congress) and the defendant, Dr.Michael Elterman(CanLII, 2000). The alleged defamation was about the violence that had been directed towards the Jews and others in Canada. The case was concluded with the denial of dismissing Dr. Elterman’s application and the defendant being entitled to the particulars that had been requested.
Another example is the case of Smith v. Western Guard Party, 1979 CanLII( CHRT).
The complainants were the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Holocaust Remembrance Assocition, David S.Smith, Toronto Zionist Council, Ajalon Lodge. The respondents were Western Guard Party and John Ross Tylor also known as George Morang with Morang. The complaint was that the respondents had engaged in discriminatory practice by communicating over the telephone over for a number of times with the number 967-7777(CanLII, 1979). The complainants could identify the particular dates that the messages were communicated whereby the public could dial some relevant numbers and listen to pre-recorded messages for almost a minute. The conclusion of the case was that Canada will fight, will not tolerate traitors but will still remain as one nation.
The third example is Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Warman, 2012 FC 1162
(CanLII)where the Canadian Human Rights Commission was the applicant and Richard Warman, the Attorney General of Canada and Marc Lemire as the respondents. The case was that Mr. Harrison had posted inflammatory messages on and that Mr. Lemire pretended not to know about it(CanLII, 2002). The judgment was that Marc Lemire constituted a breach of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Richard Warman is awarded the costs of the case.

Use the order calculator below and get ordering with now! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

Free Quote