I am sure that some people moving to Canada from China have brought large amounts of money with them, and I am equally sure that at least some of it would be Ill-gotten gains from financial crimes. I think that the Chinese government would be entitled to get this back. The problem would be sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
You know how people say that you should always talk more about the victims of violence instead of the people that create the violence? Yeah, the person that was killed during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville by being run over by a car was Heather Hayer. She was the only one, and it's vitally important we don't forget that.
This was great and much more informative than a lot of places! Thank you! Let's not forget the Canadian origin of Proud Boys though (Gavin McInnes). If we allow ourselves to forget that we are in danger of worsening the rose-coloured glasses many Canadians wear. Thanks again.
I suspect that it is entirely too early to say much about these arrests; and that it will be quite some time before any of these matters come to trial. Especially the second ones mentioned. Indeed, my guess is that it will take years to get through it all.
Moreover, if the Admiral’s trial or Senator Duffy’s experience has taught us anything, it is that one should not put too much weight on police allegations. Because, quite apart from the legal categories in play, there maybe a huge gulf between what the police believe to be true and what they can prove to be true.
Furthermore, both the underlying legislation and the methods of enforcement (e.g. search and seizure methods, or how long it takes to get to trial) will have to pass Charter scrutiny; so we should remember that Parliament does not have the last word in these matters. It is the Courts who will ultimately decide whether the law, as applied here, passes procedural and substantive muster. And given the context, it will be interesting to see whether portions of the trial have to be held “in camera”, which will no doubt engage the interest of the Press.
Finally, the sophistication of the accused, in the second set of charges, and the “free speech content” of the first set, will likely mean that the accused will be well represented. Again, like the Admiral’s trial.
As an aside: you will have noticed that last week there was some judicial enlightenment on the legal meaning of “terrorism” in R. v. O.S. - which involved a stabbing that was motivated, in part, by what was said to be “incel ideology”. The decision is here:
Accordingly (so it seems) if a crime is animated by a coherent collection of ideas - not necessarily just religious or obviously political ones - it can count as “terrorism” for the purposes of the Criminal Code.
Thus, in this case, it was an internet-instilled misogynistic outrage that supplied the necessary foundation for the conclusion that a stabbing death was “terrorism” in addition to “murder”. And it remains to be seen whether/how that may affect the sentence, when, as here, the accused is a “young offender”.
"VICE traced Macdonald’s propaganda art back to the summer of 2017 when he adopted the alias “Dark Foreigner” and began supplying graphic images to a neo-Nazi publication called Siege"
Were you thinking about the book when you wrote this sentence or the ideology behind the propaganda? It seems true for both cases.
I am sure that some people moving to Canada from China have brought large amounts of money with them, and I am equally sure that at least some of it would be Ill-gotten gains from financial crimes. I think that the Chinese government would be entitled to get this back. The problem would be sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
You know how people say that you should always talk more about the victims of violence instead of the people that create the violence? Yeah, the person that was killed during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville by being run over by a car was Heather Hayer. She was the only one, and it's vitally important we don't forget that.
This was great and much more informative than a lot of places! Thank you! Let's not forget the Canadian origin of Proud Boys though (Gavin McInnes). If we allow ourselves to forget that we are in danger of worsening the rose-coloured glasses many Canadians wear. Thanks again.
I suspect that it is entirely too early to say much about these arrests; and that it will be quite some time before any of these matters come to trial. Especially the second ones mentioned. Indeed, my guess is that it will take years to get through it all.
Moreover, if the Admiral’s trial or Senator Duffy’s experience has taught us anything, it is that one should not put too much weight on police allegations. Because, quite apart from the legal categories in play, there maybe a huge gulf between what the police believe to be true and what they can prove to be true.
Furthermore, both the underlying legislation and the methods of enforcement (e.g. search and seizure methods, or how long it takes to get to trial) will have to pass Charter scrutiny; so we should remember that Parliament does not have the last word in these matters. It is the Courts who will ultimately decide whether the law, as applied here, passes procedural and substantive muster. And given the context, it will be interesting to see whether portions of the trial have to be held “in camera”, which will no doubt engage the interest of the Press.
Finally, the sophistication of the accused, in the second set of charges, and the “free speech content” of the first set, will likely mean that the accused will be well represented. Again, like the Admiral’s trial.
As an aside: you will have noticed that last week there was some judicial enlightenment on the legal meaning of “terrorism” in R. v. O.S. - which involved a stabbing that was motivated, in part, by what was said to be “incel ideology”. The decision is here:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc4142/2023onsc4142.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHUiB2LiBPUwAAAAAB&resultIndex=2
Accordingly (so it seems) if a crime is animated by a coherent collection of ideas - not necessarily just religious or obviously political ones - it can count as “terrorism” for the purposes of the Criminal Code.
Thus, in this case, it was an internet-instilled misogynistic outrage that supplied the necessary foundation for the conclusion that a stabbing death was “terrorism” in addition to “murder”. And it remains to be seen whether/how that may affect the sentence, when, as here, the accused is a “young offender”.
Funny, but I would have thought the 26 year old would be the little fish.
"VICE traced Macdonald’s propaganda art back to the summer of 2017 when he adopted the alias “Dark Foreigner” and began supplying graphic images to a neo-Nazi publication called Siege"
Were you thinking about the book when you wrote this sentence or the ideology behind the propaganda? It seems true for both cases.