What can we do with rabid hate mongers?

William A. White, a rabid Internet hate monger was arrested in 2008 after he wrote repeatedly on his website and in his magazine that Canadian human rights lawyer Richard Warman should be assassinated and his house be firebombed. Apparently angry at Mr. Warman's successful campaign against racist Internet sites, White called him an "enemy," wrote that he "must be tried by a revolutionary trial conducted by activists and then dragged out into the street and shot. White even provided Warman’s home

Warman had launched scores of human rights complaints and lawsuits over Internet postings, many of them by far-right extremists. His complaints have resulted in hefty fines but have made him a target of hate mongers like White.

The question before the court hearing his case was; did the racist's online rants amount to true threats, as defined by U.S. federal law? Or did the words of White, a neo-Nazi leader, stop short of inciting or producing imminent lawless action and thus fall under the protection of the United States’ First Amendment? (the right of free speech)

His lawyers maintained that White was all talk and no threat but the jury didn’t buy it. They convicted White of threatening Warman. Done in by his own words, White was convicted on December 18, 2009 of threatening Warman in his website in Virginia Beach. The verdict, however, was not a total repudiation of White's assertion that the First Amendment should protect his incendiary speech.

Of seven counts against White, the federal jury acquitted him on the extortion charge and the charges involving the alleged threats against Columnist Leonard Pitts and the Mayor of a township in New Jersey. The judge however upheld three other convictions against White stemming from intimidation and threats. White was advised that he would be sentenced on April 14 and if convicted, he faces many years in prison for those convictions.

Later in February, 2010, a U.S. District Court judge in Virginia overturned the verdict with respect to White’s so-called threats against Warman. He ruled that Warman’s actions did not amount to threats as defined by U.S. federal law.

Judge James Turk wrote. "Certainly, calling for Richard Warman to be 'dragged out into the street and shot, after appropriate trial by a revolutionary tribunal of Canada's white activists' or expressing hope that someone firebombs his house is offensive and disturbing, and perhaps frightening to Richard Warman."

The judge also said that White's actions were protected by free speech and could not be considered threats because he had not actually indicated he himself intended to commit violence against the Warman.

Needless to say, this decision upset Warman. He said in an email. "I testified at the trial and I said that I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that when someone publishes 'Kill Richard Warman' and then gives my home address that they mean it as a true threat." He also said, "I think it's uncivilized to permit people to issue death threats and counsel murder and firebombing while publishing the desired victim's home address. The First Amendment was passed in 1791 and I doubt that's what the U.S. Founding Fathers had in mind."

Now I will try to explain why the threat against Warman was dismissed.

According to Article 18 U.S.C. Section 85; of the U.S. Federal Code, it says that whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or threat to injure the person of another, (means the person’s body) shall be fined more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘interstate commerce’ to mean amongst other things; “intercourse (communication) of persons between points in the same state or in other states of the United States.”

It follows that the message in White’s website was not specifically directed to other persons in his state or in other states in the U.S and although it may have been directed to Warman; he lives in Montreal and not in the United States so in effect, White couldn’t be convicted of threatening Warman under that particular American federal law. This would also apply with respect to his incitement to kill all Jews in Canada.

What constitutes a threat? A threat becomes a criminal offence if it is communicated for the purpose of doing physical harm to anyone or their property and it is conveyed by any means such as by person-to-person, telephone, letter, or even by an internet message or a website in a computer.

The mens rea (criminal intent) for the offence of uttering a threat requires that the prosecutor prove that the threat was made with intent that it be taken seriously, or with intent to intimidate.

Let me give you an example of a direct threat. On February 6, 2010, Jason Montur, age 41 was arrested and charged with threatening to donate a bomb and shoot some passengers in a Mississauga, Ontario city tour bus he was riding in because after he lit up a cigarette, he made the threat to some of the passengers on the bus who objected to him smoking on the bus. Unfortunately for that dummy, there were two plainclothes police officers on board the bus at the time.

That is a little different than the kind of threat directed towards Warman and the next victims I am going to tell you about.

On June 24, 2009, an Internet blog host known for his incendiary views was arrested in North Bergen, N.J., after federal officials said that his angry postings about a gun case in Chicago amounted to death threats against three judges. It was a case that tested the limits of free speech but the Justice Department stated that the radio host, Hal Turner, had crossed the line into hate speech.

Turner, regarded by civil rights monitoring groups as a white supremacist, an anti-Semite and a ‘maestro of radio hate’, posted commentaries on his blog denouncing a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, that upheld two local bans on handguns. What he wrote in his blog entry on June 2nd of that year was; “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.”

Admittedly, he didn’t say, “I am going to kill the judges.” That would be a direct threat. What he did was indirectly threaten the judges with death by suggesting to others who read his blog, that the judges should be killed. That would still be considered a true threat.

Turner also posted in his blog, the judges’ photographs, phone numbers, work addresses and courtroom numbers. Despite that, there is no indication that Turner or anyone else acted on his warnings. Nonetheless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in an affidavit it brought to the court that it believed his comments constituted “a threat to assault or murder a United States judge.”

Is that any different than what White said in his blog with respect to his suggestion that Warman should be taken into the street and shot?

Traditionally, the American courts have given wide latitude to First Amendment rights, even in cases involving speech that is widely considered offensive, but public statements regarded as ‘true threats’ have not been afforded legal protection but in Whites case, the Superior Court judge in Virginia who overruled the jury’s verdict, concluded that the threat made against Warman wasn’t a true threat. What we have here is a conflict of judicial opinions.

Alas, I can’t report to my readers what the final decision was in Turner’s trial because the jury was deadlocked so the judge declared a mistrial and set a retrial for March 1st 2010.

There was an interesting case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada that dealt with the crime of uttering a threat. The issue before the court was whether or not words must be uttered with the intent to intimidate or instill fear or whether the threat was sufficient to show that the threat was uttered with the intent that it be taken seriously by the victim of the threat.

The appellant (Victor Francisco Clemente) made threats to his social worker against her colleague (his former social worker) to whom his file was to be transferred. He stated on one occasion that he would blow up her office and strangle her. On another occasions, he said that a dead body would be found in her office on transfer of his file, and on yet on another occasion, he said that he would kill her. The appellant was convicted of intending to convey to his former social worker that he intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm to her, contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. His threat was definitely a true threat.

An interesting question that one can raise looking at the threat objectively is; would the questioned words convey a threat of serious bodily harm to a reasonable person if she said to his victim’s co-worker, “I think she should be killed?” Surely, anyone having that message passed on to him or her would believe that he or she may be strangled to death. It certainly would be intimidating and I can only presume that when Clemente made the threat, it was his intentions to intimidate his social worker into adhering to his demands.

However in that particular case, the appellant was more direct when he said that he would strangle her and for this reason, his appeal was dismissed.

I am convinced in my mind that when White made his threat that Warman should be taken into a street and shot, he made that statement in an attempt to get Warman to stop doing what he was doing, to wit; going after racists like White. Unfortunately, under the American federal law with respect to threats, it only applies to communications between persons in their same state or other states of the United States and wouldn’t apply when the threat is directed towards someone (other than a protected person such as a government leader) in another country. That is why the case against White with respect to Warman was dismissed by the higher court.

There is obviously a difference between someone making a comment that someone would be better off dead when the person who makes the comment has no personal animosity towards the person he says would be better of dead, than someone who makes that statement when he has something to gain from the death of the person he has directed his statement to.

Suppose for example, someone who has no personal axe to grind with a president of a country other than he thinks that president is a danger to the people in his nation if he remains in office, makes a public statement that his country would be better off if that particular president was dead. Is that a threat? Of course not. Many people had publicly stated that Saddam Hussein would be better off dead when he was the dictator of Iraq. No one (other than those in Iraq) was at risk at being charged with threatening because they made that statement.

But when White made his statement, he had an axe to grind with Warman and in making that statement, I am convinced that he hoped that some twit would read his blog and be inspired to do White’s handiwork. The reality of such a thing occurring cannot be ignored. There are a lot of unstable people in this world who want to make a name for themselves and White’s blog would be the spark that would inflame the feeble minds of hate mongers who would jump at the prospect of killing someone who is out to destroy them and being given Warman’s address, the possibility really existed and perhaps still does.

I believe that the U.S. federal government erred when they chose to charge White with the crime of threatening as per Article 18 U.S.C. Section 85 of the U.S. Federal Code as it related to Warman. The charged was doomed to fail from the beginning.

They couldn’t have even charged him with ‘Harassment by Computer’. Article 18.2-152.7:1. of the U.S. Federal Code states; “If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

To convict him of harassment by computer, the prosecution would have to establish that his ranting with respect to Warman really was a true threat as defined by federal law. Since it wasn’t, that charge of harassment by computer couldn’t be applied.

In Canada, uttering threats is defined in Section 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code as thus; “Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person; (b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or (c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.”

If White made a direct threat to Warman, then Canada could ask the United States to extradite him to Canada. But as I implied earlier, the threat was more indirect. Further, in order for White to be extradited to Canada, his offence would have to be very similar to that of the state of Virginia. In that state, threatening is defined under Article 18.2-60 A-1 as follows; “Any person who knowingly communicates, in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, a threat to kill or do bodily injury to a person, regarding that person or any member of his family, and the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.”

I interpret both the Canadian law and the Virginia law to mean that the person making the threat to the person must do so directly or indirectly through some other person or other communication such as a letter or phone call to the victim. In my opinion, merely making a public statement that someone should kill Warman doesn’t come under these two statutes. If White made the suggestion to some one personally or sent a letter or an email or made a phone call to Warman, then it is conceivable that he could be extradited to Canada but in actual fact, these things he didn’t do.

This ignorant hate monger did something else that he was acquitted of. He had also written that Canada was a "petty tyranny" and called for parliament to be stormed and the government executed. He said in his blog, "Overthrow your government! Put your Jews to the sword."

Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber, who testified against White, said of the ruling. "I really do hope the government will address this in an appeal because it can't be allowed to stand." He was speaking of the American government.

White’s statement, “Put your Jews to the sword” is in fact advocating genocide. That is against the law. In Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it bans acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It declares genocide a crime under international law whether committed during war or peacetime, and binds all signatories of the convention to take measures to prevent and punish any acts of genocide committed within their jurisdiction. The act bans killing of members of any racial, ethnic, national or religious group because of their membership in that group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, inflicting on members of the group conditions of life intended to destroy them, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and taking group members' children away from them and giving them to members of another group. It declares genocide itself, conspiracy or incitement to commit genocide, attempts to commit or complicity in the commission of genocide all to be illegal. Individuals are to be held responsible for these acts whether they were acting in their official capacities or as private individuals. Signatories to the convention are bound to enact appropriate legislation to make the acts named in Article 3 illegal under their national law and provide appropriate penalties for violators.

People suspected of acts of genocide may be tried by a national tribunal in the territory where the acts were committed or by a properly constituted international tribunal whose jurisdiction is recognized by the state or states involved. For purposes of extradition, an allegation of genocide is not to be considered a political crime, and states are bound to extradite suspects in accordance with national laws and treaties. Any state party to the Convention may also call upon the United Nations to act to prevent or punish acts of genocide. In other words, if someone in the United States advocates killing all Jews in Canada, that person could be tried in the United States. Unfortunately, that wouldn’t happen in the United States because the U.S. refused to sign the Covenant. Canada however is a signatory of the U.N. Covenant and as such, it could ask the Americans to extradite White so that he could be tried in Canada with inciting genocide against the Jews in Canada. I don’t know if the Americans would cooperate but if they did, it would be a sure way of them getting that hate mongering thug out of their hair.

Jacques Mungwarere, a Rwandan genocide suspect arrested in Canada in November 2009 was the first person to make public the theory of killing Tutsis and throwing them into Nyabaronga River, a tributary of River Nile which he said would make it easy for them to flow to Ethiopia where he said they originated. Canada was the current home to this man who was a former lecturer at the National University of Rwanda who was known for his hate ideology in the pre-genocide era. Mugesera was tried and convicted and awaits deportation from Canada after he serves his sentence. He was sentenced to life in prison and must serve 25 years in prison before he can ask for parole.

In July 2009, a U.N. war crimes tribunal sentenced a former governor in Rwanda to life in prison after finding that he was one of the main perpetrators of genocide in the African country in 1994. Lt. Col. Tharcisse Renzaho, 65, was governor of the Rwandan capital, Kigali, during the genocide, giving him authority over the police force. The court said he incited the killings and urged soldiers and Hutu militia and civilians to construct roadblocks where they could intercept and kill fleeing Tutsis.
As you can see, inciting anyone to commit genocide is a crime, punishable by life in prison. This means that William A. White, the rabid American hate monger should have been charged with inciting genocide when he posted in his blog, “Kill all the Jews.”

I am waiting with great anticipation as to what the Americans are going to do about this hate mongering thug. When I learn more, I will post in my by blog as an update on this article.