R v Rehberg (para 6): "The position of the Crown is that the act of cross-burning, in and of itself, when considered in the historical context-its connection and association with the Ku Klux Klan- the act itself is one of intimidation and one that incites hatred."

Q. Why does historical context matter with respect to non-linguistic signifiers (ie symbols, etc) in determining whether they can be understood as hate speech?