You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 54.161.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Blablubbs‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 10:07, 1 October 2024.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 18:27, 12 November 2023
- Expiry of block: 18:27, 12 November 2028
Your current IP address is 54.161.166.4. The blocked range is 54.161.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Short description|Supreme Court of Canada case on promotion of hatred))
((Refimprove|date=January 2023))
((Infobox SCC
 |case-name      = R v Krymowski
 |full-case-name = Her Majesty The Queen v Krystopher Krymowski, Ryan Douglas Marshall, Quinn Mason McFarlane, Michael Peter Schultz, J.J.V. and A.M.V
 |heard-date     = November 8, 2004
 |decided-date   = February 24, 2005
 |citations= [https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2206/index.do 2005 SCC 7, [2005<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1 SCR 101], 249 DLR (4th) 28, 193 CCC (3d) 129, 26 CR (6th) 207, 195 OAC 341
 |docket         = 29865
 |history        = Judgment for the accused in the [[Court of Appeal for Ontario]]
 |subsequent     =
 |ruling         = Acquittals set aside and new trials ordered
 |ratio          =  The trial judge erred by failing to consider the totality of the evidence in a hate speech case under the ''Criminal Code''
 |SCC            = 2004-2005
 |Unanimous      = Charron J
 |LawsApplied    = ''[[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]'', s. 319(2)
))

'''''R v Krymowski''''' is a decision by the [[Supreme Court of Canada]], interpreting the ''Criminal Code'' offence of [[Hate speech laws in Canada|wilful promotion of hatred]].  On a Crown appeal, the Court unanimously held that the offence could apply to individuals protesting the presence in Canada of [[Romani people|Roma people]] (also known as "[[Gypsy (term)|Gypsies]]").  The Court held that the trial judge had taken too strict an approach in distinguishing the term "Gypsies", used by the protestors, from the Crown's charge, which used the term "Roma".  The Court set aside the acquittals of the seven accused and remitted the matter for a new trial.

==Background==
((see also|Antiziganism))
In the summer of 1997, a group of [[Romani people|Roma people]] were admitted into Canada, seeking refugee status.  While their refugee claim was being reviewed, the group was lodged in a motel in [[Scarborough, Ontario]].  On August 26, 1997, a group of around twenty-five people staged a protest in front of the motel. Protesters held signs that said, for example, "Honk if you hate Gypsies", "Canada is not a Trash Can", and "G.S.T. — Gypsies Suck Taxes".  They also chanted statements such as "Gypsies Out", "How do you like Canada now?" and "White power".  Some of the protestors gave the Nazi "[[Nazi salute|Sieg Heil]]" salute, some waved [[Flag of Nazi Germany|Nazi]] and [[Flags of the Confederate States of America|American Confederate flags]], and some wore clothing, accessories and footwear which were described as typical "[[Skinhead]]" gear.<ref>[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2206/index.do ''R v Krymowski'', 2005 SCC 7, [2005<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1 SCR 101], para. 3.</ref>

The protest followed weeks of public controversy in which a large number of public officials, members of the press and media, police and the general public spoke and wrote very harsh things about "gypsy" refugee claimants.((cn|date=October 2023)) Several major newspapers ran news articles and editorials highly critical of gypsy refugees, suggesting a culture of criminality and an abuse by the refugee claimants of Canada's immigration and social services systems.((cn|date=October 2023)) One senior local official was even quoted as saying that gypsies "pimp their wives and daughters" and train their children to steal.((cn|date=October 2023)) The public mood towards the refugee claimants was especially grim because of ongoing major cuts to social programs, which were already putting local needy families at risk.((cn|date=October 2023))

The protesters did not refer to "Roma".((cn|date=October 2023)) Police described the protest as "peaceful". The trial judge agreed.((cn|date=October 2023)) One of the two lead detectives testified that the "essential message" of the demonstrators "was that "gypsy refugee claimants" should not be permitted to stay in Canada" and that "many people were expressing [that] view", before and after the demonstration.((cn|date=October 2023))

==Charges and trial==
Four months later, after intense public lobbying by pressure groups, the homes of a number of people believed to have been involved in the demonstration were raided by police.((cn|date=October 2023)) Seven people were charged with [[Hate speech laws in Canada|wilful promotion of hatred]] against an "identifiable group",((cn|date=October 2023)) a crime under s. 319 of the ''[[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]''.<ref>((Cite canlaw|short title  =Criminal Code|abbr =RSC|year =1985|chapter =C-46|section =319|subsection =2|link =https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html)).</ref> All persons charged ranged in age from 15 to 20.((cn|date=October 2023)) No public official or members of the media or police were charged.((cn|date=October 2023))

The trial and pre-trial motions lasted 47 days, spread over 16 months, ending in March 2000.((cn|date=October 2023)) The defence called no evidence at trial. Instead, the defence argued that the Crown had failed to prove that the demonstrators specifically targeted "Roma".((cn|date=October 2023)) They had spoken only of "gypsies", which the defence argued may or may not refer to Roma, and the Crown had called no evidence on the point. The Crown responded arguing, among other things, that the defence had already conceded the equivalence of "gypsies" and "Roma" and pointed to Exhibit 12, a written defence concession given at the request of the Crown.((cn|date=October 2023))

Attached to Exhibit 12 was an extract of an article authored by [[Ian Hancock]], an academic who has studied the Roma people.  The Crown argued that Hancock used the words "Roma" and "Gypsies" to refer to the same people.  The article was selected by the Crown as background to the concession. Exhibit 12 read:

((Blockquote
|text=On behalf of all accused, [defence counsel] Mr. Gomes and I [defence counsel Lindsay] admit that the Roma people are an identifiable group which were historically persecuted by the Nazis. I agree to admission of the section of the Hancock article entitled "The Treatment of Roma in Nazi Germany" (pp 7–8) solely as background to the admission in the previous sentence and not as any further admission. I make no further admission and do not concede to admission of any of the rest of the Hancock article. Mr. Gomes agrees to all of the contents of this fax on behalf of his clients.((cn|date=October 2023))))

The trial judge made the following findings of fact with respect to Exhibit 12:

((Blockquote
|text=The precise and unequivocal concession on the facsimile covering page by both defence counsel is that "the roma people are an identifiable group, which were historically persecuted by the Nazis." Solely on the basis of that concession, the defence consented to the admission of the remaining part of the two pages of the exhibit, solely as background to the admission, the previous statement, and nothing more. As a further qualification, the defence writes that there are no further admissions and nothing further is conceded from the rest of the article.  A review of the article suggests that the term roma and gypsies may be synonymous. However, whether they are one and the same is not clear. The concession from the defence does not go so far as to concede that they are one and the same, nor that gypsies are an identifiable group, historically persecuted by the Nazis.
...	
Regardless of what other discussions took place, Exhibit Number 12 is the final result of those discussions, and on its face is clear and unequivocal and would not in my view induce the Crown to believe that it is any more than clearly stated.
...
I put directly to Crown counsel in argument the question of which statements on the record made by the defence contributed directly or indirectly to the Crown’s omission or inadvertence.  The Crown was unable to direct me to any particular comments in the transcripts.  In my extensive review of the transcripts, I found no such statements.((cn|date=October 2023))))

The Crown also pointed to [[dictionary]] definitions of "gypsy" and "Roma".  The defence noted that the dictionary definitions of "gypsy" included "a cunning rogue" and that none of the definitions of "Roma" offered by the Crown referred to the word "gypsy".((cn|date=October 2023))

The trial judge ruled in favour of the accused and acquitted them. The Crown appealed.

==Lower court appeals==
Both the [[Superior Court of Ontario]] and later the [[Court of Appeal for Ontario]] upheld the acquittals.  The Court of Appeal found that "the term gypsy in its broadest sense is often used to refer to people who lead a nomadic life" and "conjures up unflattering or stereotypical images".  At the Court of Appeal, the Crown conceded that "not all people who are referred to as gypsies are in fact Roma".((cn|date=October 2023))

==Appeal to the Supreme Court==
===Outcome===
The Crown appealed a third time, to the [[Supreme Court of Canada]].

At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Crown conceded that no evidence was tendered at trial showing that the occupants of the motel where the demonstration occurred were in fact "Roma". Nevertheless, in its judgment several months later, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the acquittals largely on the basis that, according to witnesses at trial, the motel housed "Roma".

The court overturned the dismissal and held, "The appeal should be allowed.  The acquittals are set aside and new trials ordered."

The defence filed a motion for a re-hearing of the appeal. The motion was dismissed, without reasons.

===Reasons of the Supreme Court===

The decision of the Court was written by Justice [[Louise Charron]]. She first observed that in ''[[R v Keegstra]]'', the Supreme Court had already held that the hate speech law was constitutional.<ref>[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1258/index.do ''R v Keegstra'', [1995<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 381.]</ref> In ''Keegstra'', a majority of the Court held that the definition of the crime was specific enough to be enforceable and its infringement on [[freedom of expression]] was minimal. That meant that the Crown was obligated to show the protesters publicly promoted hatred against a racial or religious group. It was not disputed the Roma would be such a group. Moreover, the protesters targeted a specific group.

Charron faulted the trial finding as too focussed on the terms "Roma" and "Gypsies," and not on the general question of whether the protesters were attempting to promote hatred of the Roma. Charron emphasized the importance of studying the "totality of the evidence" and drawing reasonable conclusions to determine whether a group was subject to hate speech.<ref>''R v Krymowski'', SCC, para. 19.</ref> It was suggested that evidence besides the use of the word "Gypsies" be considered. That included that the Roma were staying at a motel that was targeted, that neo-Nazi displays were used, and that the protesters advocated "[[White nationalism#White power|White Power]]." Neo-Nazism was particularly important since the [[Nazi Germany|Nazi Germans]] persecuted the Roma in [[the Holocaust]].

Finally, Charron noted that use of the words "Roma" and "Gypsies" as synonyms need not have been fully proven if it were reasonable enough to believe and not be disputed. The dictionaries used in the case made the use of the synonyms believable and understandable.

==See also==
* [[List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)]]

==References==
((Reflist))

((DEFAULTSORT:Krymowski))
[[Category:Romani in Canada]]
[[Category:Romani rights]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases]]
[[Category:2005 in Canadian case law]]
[[Category:Hate speech case law]]
[[Category:Racism in Canada]]
[[Category:Antiziganism in North America]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

R v Krymowski (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Blockquote (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Blockquote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite canlaw (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Cn (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Has short description (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox SCC (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Refimprove (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:See also (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Template other (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:GetParameters (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Italic title (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Redirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:String2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to R v Krymowski.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Krymowski"