Canada to make online hate speech a crime punishable by fine

> But a person having lesser melanin than me criticized my country in a similar way, that would be considered hate speech in Canada.

Did you read the pertinent definition of hate speech in this situation? It doesn't include banning the criticism of a political entity in general, and beyond that I would imagine political arguments are not protected grounds of discrimination regardless of the entity. Most hate speech laws try to limit the criticism of people and groups based on specific characteristics, and this one seems no different.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so take with a grain of salt, but in a nutshell, without a 'Constitution' which broadly codifies rights, then laws are interpreted more narrowly - government has more flexibility to 'enact laws'.

But when there is a 'Constitution' that sets a broad but vague boundaries (Canada got one in 1982), then the Courts have significantly more power to interpret laws through the lens of Constitutionality.

After Canada got a proper Constitution in 1982, a bunch of laws that were on the books were overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court.

So things like abortion, civil rights, gay marriage, euthanasia etc. ... we don't actually 'legislate' these things - even if we do - the 'actual rules' are basically going to be determined in the Supreme Court.

Euthinasia is allowed in Canada, not because we legislated it, but because there was a Supreme Court ruling [0] in 2015, which kind of 'flip flopped' on a previous ruling a decade before.

This is from the CBC [1] which articulates some of the changes. In this article they talk mostly about 'human rights' which is good obviously (but you have to think about framing bias). Most conspicuously, they note in the last section the rise of 'Judicial Activism' - kind of an American term, and kind of loaded so a lot of people don't take to it very well, but what they mean is 'more freedom of the courts to interpret the law'.

i.e.

"amounts to a significant transfer of policy making to the courts," especially in an area that could be described as "morality issues."

"The charter has meant that the courts have a major influence on those things in a way they wouldn't have previously," he says.

Some would argue that this is 'how it should be' and that previously there was Parliamentary Supremacy ... except that I do believe something is fairly wrong when we really have no clue if the laws we write are constitutional or not. That makes absolutely no sense.

The courts don't write the laws, but they're ultimately the deciding factor on all the huge issues.

I don't believe that Constitutionality should be the purview of the courts, since it kind of implies they set their own jurisdictional bounds.

In my view - the Courts should only be able to interpret the law as is. If there is a major Constitutional review - that it might get deferred to a different body or process. I don't know what that would be. But not the Supreme Court in the way that it works today.

This is a global phenomenon because a lot of 'new' constitutions are being written.

It's not talked abut a lot, but it's one of the major behind the scenes issues around Brexit.

The EU (as the EEC) established a court called the 'European Court of Justice' (ECJ).

It was never agreed to in treaty that it's laws would be 'supreme' to those of nation states.

But - in hugely impactful ECJ ruling in 1964, the ECJ basically made a constitutional assertion: "Since we have formed a union, and act like one, and since we are the court of he union, then our rulings have supremacy over national courts".

What that means is - the ECJ ruling on a fairly minor case (with huge implications) decided their own jurisdiction: they were the 'Supreme Court' of Europe, and their laws trumped national laws.

Consider how crazy that is: EU leaders never actually explicitly agreed to that. Don't you think, that if your nation was going to enter into a treaty with other nations, and that you're going to hand over a fundamental pillar of sovereignty' - that this would be explicit* and clear in the treaty? With a bunch of parameters? And a referendum?

So who has 'Supreme Power'? The ECJ? Because they said so?

Over time, it's an issue that makes it's way through the various national legal systems. In some countries (France) it's more established. In others, not so much. But there have been further EU treaties since then so it effectively becomes more 'codified' indirectly.

The Germans maintain a kind of 'backstop' to this, in that they believe they have the right to review EU laws in a certain way, and that their Constitution is 'inviolable' but it's still kind of 'up in the air'.

This comes back to the 'Constitutional' issue in an important way since the EU has established their 'Charter of Fundamental Human Rights' [3] - which codifies more strongly all the 'nice human rights things' - with the caveat that the wording is naturally very vague, and gives the courts enormous power over established law.

It wasn't talked about much, but the ambiguity of all of this, and particularly the ECJ's interpretation of this new Charter, mean that there was a kind of 'unspoken war' brewing between UK Courts and the ECJ that was going to happen basically over decades of proceedings. This is partly because the UK doesn't have a formal Constitution with all the 'nice rights' in 'clean, nice sounding paragraphs' etc..

Basically, it's a giant paradox. Everyone wants 'human rights and constitutional protections', but they're generally fairly vague and aspirational documents that some arguably put the entire legal system up for grabs by the institution that has (or 'takes') the power to do it. However much oversight, there's a kind of a back door mechanism to incredible power.

When we say 'Western Liberal Democracy' we usually mean Executive, Legislative and Judiciary with 'equal' powers - the balance of power to stop authoritarianism. (In reality you could throw in the Central Bank and 'free press' as being just as important).

So it's not a small, petty debate, it's kind of foundational material. It's a really big deal.

Finally: huge grains of salt here, I'm not an expert, just a casual observer. I reserve the right to be fully corrected by the many lawyers here on HN.

[0] https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/ad-am/scc-csc.html

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/6-big-changes-the-charter-of-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_...

What seems to be missing from the list of classes is sexual orientation. Is this just how it appears from the outside?

The quote from the Labour MP is absolutely correct. Doubly so when whites are told that they're always "acting to preserve their own power and privilege", even when they're not, and they've been raised to despise the behavior they feel criticized for doing. This leads to the mindset of "well, if I'm a racist either way, I'd rather be one who actually DOES look out for my own self-interest."

It's a classic Prisoner's Dilemma [0]. I feel this dilemma quite deeply myself. I vastly prefer a society that treats people as individuals, while still condemning racism and teaching its role in our history, but if every other group acts selfishly and I still get called a racist either way, then at the very least I won't be a sucker too.

Lately this manifests in access to education. Consider this excerpt from a Washington Post report on admissions changes at Thomas Jefferson, the nation's #1 high school:

>Eleven percent of this year’s offers will go to Hispanic students, and 7 percent will go to Black students — both representing significant increases. 22 percent of this year’s offers are going to White students — a number that is largely consistent with the past four years, when White students accounted for between 17 and 22 percent of offers extended. Fifty-four percent of offers are going to Asian students, a marked decrease. In previous years, Asian students have accounted for between 65 and 75 percent of all offers.

>The county at large was 60 percent White, 10 percent Black, 20 percent Asian and 17 percent Hispanic in 2020, according to Fairfax government data.

>Still, the sharp decline in Asian representation is sure to stoke controversy in the Fairfax school system, a Northern Virginia district of 180,000 located just outside D.C.

Tensions stoked by "a decline in Asian representation"? What about the white parents, whose children make up 60% of the county but just 22% of TJ students? White students are now the most underrepresented race in TJ admissions, by a lot. The possibility that they might object to this status isn't even considered. In this case, every other big racial group is now openly fighting for their own self-interest, in the courts and the bureacracy, except for whites. How long do we expect this to last?

The solution is to preserve and rebuild trust between people of different racial and ethnic groups, including white people. I don't know how best to do this, exactly, but laws like the one proposed in Canada are probably on the wrong track.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/after-admissions-changes-t...

You're right, there's no reason to believe that. At least, not unless you've been paying any attention at all to the rhetoric and explicit ideological content of "anti-racism" over the past decade and you're able to locate this bill in that context.

>Similarly in UK, the health secretary was caught having an affair the entire time he was telling people to socially distance. Not a single political will ever get held accountable.

In response to this affair, the Health Secretary has resigned:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57622888

We saw the same in the US with both elected and appointed officials in many of the states with the strictest of mandates, including California, Michigan and New York.

At least CA has a recall election planned for the governor, but if I were a betting man I doubt I would bet on it succeeding.

People of all political leanings seem quick to forgive politicians (from their side) for being human, while average citizens do not receive the same leniency from the government itself.

That's right; we already have free speech restrictions. Why do we need these extremely vague, extra restrictions, and why now? Nothing in this bill would have prevented the vehicle attack that supposedly prompted this bill.

American here. The problem I see with laws against hate speech is that "hate speech" is not defined concretely. While the intentions are certainly good, and I agree with the intentions, I disagree with the law because it leaves the definition of "hate speech" as a subjective term that is left up to the courts/prosecutors to define.

> I wouldn't trust the Trump administration with coming up with a list of human rights, that doesn't mean that the only acceptable compromise is that we shouldn't have any.

The point remains the same. If you don't trust Trump (or the simple majority of voters in a given election) with the power to set rights, then you shouldn't give them such power. Rights are supposed to be restrictions on the govt. If the president can define hate speech then there is no right being protected from the govt.

I don't think this is the win you think it is.

That statement has always been problematic, and generally, even the people uttering it know it. Those that don't, who genuinely believe it, well, yeah, that's hate speech. That should be addressed.

Many feminists have been working to address this exact issue with their messaging. Discussions around "toxic masculinity" being the issue, not men themselves, and "Not All Men, but Yes All Women" draw attention to the fact that _enough_ men are dangerous, and enough men allow it, that there's a good chance that any woman you meet has a "harassed by a man" story.

Further, you and I are using the phrase "men are scum" without it being hate speech just fine, since we're using it to discuss an important social point. But using it to vilify an entire gender? Yeah, that's hate speech. You've hit the nail right on the head.

Well yeah, that's the exact kind of needlessly aggressive and divisive rhetoric this is meant to prevent.

Yes? "$GROUP are scum" is absolutely hate speech.

I would say they fail to see the danger, because you have to expect that at some point your enemy will wield the reigns of power.

Here in the United States, criticism of Israeli state policy as it affects Palenstians is often labeled antisemitic. Laws have been passed on that basis to proscribe the pro-Palestinean Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement [0]:

>In the US, a large number of anti-BDS laws have been passed. As of 2020, 32 states have laws that prevent boycotts against Israel and a number of non-binding resolutions have been passed denouncing BDS. A majority of these have passed with strong bipartisan support. Two federal acts have been introduced, the 2017 Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the 2019 Combating BDS Act, both intended to deprive entities participating in boycotts of Israel of government contract work. In several states, these laws have been challenged on First Amendment grounds for violating citizens' freedom of speech.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sancti...

There's a good overview of it here [1]. The author of the article has a lot of weird twitter opinions these days, but the incidents he's citing here are all real.

[1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...

>Contrary to popular (American) opinion laws regulating speech are in fact not a new and authoritarian invention but have existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries

It's common sense that without a history in the West of regulating free speech, there wouldn't have been a first amendment in the US. You don't have to know what the regulations were.

So you are not just generalizing Americans as ignorant of history, but also as unable to use basic logic.

Yes, and the UK arrested a man for teaching a dog the Nazi salute. A dog. In fact they arrest over 2400 people a year for saying mean things on the internet. I find that deeply chilling.

It's almost as if America was a radical attempt at a new kind of government, where its founders tried to avoid many of the pitfalls they had observed in Europe. The "United Kingdom" ("England" when we broke up with it) had (and still has) a method of governance that was flawed. That's why we didn't copy it. Any country that still has an intact monarchy, however ornamental, has no business lecturing others on the ideal forms of government.

Heh, next section:

> Section 319(3): Four defences—provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if:

> the person establishes that the statements communicated were true;

> in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

> the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or

> in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.[15]

As for the 'reasonable person' standard? I think that's how most laws as interpreted. For "identifiable group", the definition is:

> any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

Certainly hate speech has the potential to be widely/broadly interpreted, and one could imagine scenarios where they would be problematic. I think broadly speaking, Canadians are aware of the potential of mis-use, but are generally "okay with it" based on the relative restraint that decades of different governments from different parties have shown.

Which I think is why I am kind of weary of changes to the law and policy in general (though I really haven't processed this particular change yet. I think the inclusion of the Supreme Court definition is pretty benign, but not sure about the online carve outs...). I think that have this 'oh shit, this is a real baddy' recourse is useful, but it's validity and usefulness can only be sustained with restrained use. I am not particularly optimistic on this current government's ability to show restraint (and I broadly support their policies and platforms...).

> Just reading what you are quoting, it sounds like 319(1) is not allowing for truth or intent as a defense.

With the recent unearthing of the hundreds of bodies of children who died in Residential schools that were often run by the Catholic Church many Canadians have been very vocal for their dislike for the Catholic Church.

It will be very interesting to see how law enforcement chooses to enforce these laws when it comes to public dialogue about powerful institutions like the Catholic church.

You read a single sentence, and presumed a LOT about the law.

Have a quick glance at Section 319(3) of the law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Sec...

In short, there are four defenses for hate speech (my summary): statements were true, statements expressing sincerely held religious beliefs, statements were of public interest, statements were talking about hate speech or hate.

We've had hate speech laws for a long time, my entire lifetime, and they are not used to quell debate or political discourse, unless you consider calling for violence against various groups "political speech". The bar is high, and defenses are strong.

Interestingly in Quebec (unlike other provinces), truth does not constitute an absolute defense against libel and defaming. Truthfulness is only a defence if the information was published in the public interest and without malice.

Here's a famous cause about it: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2168/in...

Interestingly, I think an argument could be made that ‘having a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like’ is equivalent to thinking the other is evil or at minimum immoral.

Willing to be told I’m wrong.

Right, yes, and this is totally unrelated even when you have one campaign begging FAANG to censor a political rival before the election… https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-bid... (Notice CNN’s take that it’s bad Facebook didn’t do more, not that this was a political kneecapping… still, CNN accidentally did a journalism)

It’s a private company! Build your own Facebook! (Nevermind that Google with their nearly infinite money tried and spectacularly failed). Ignoring the reality it’s a monopoly.

The spirit of free speech extends past the US Government. If it’s not illegal it shouldn’t be censored by what is effectively a common carrier, this is why everyone is in a rush to expand what is illegal.

"Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocence is only required in a legal context, not a social context. You see a similar pattern with free speech: people try to defend private censorship by saying that the First Amendment only applies to the government, while ignoring the fact that the amendment is just a legal codification of the general principle of free speech. It's a poor defense in free speech cases and it's a poor defense here, but I'm sure that's the defense you would hear. It's shocking that so many are unable to grasp the values that generate cultural mores, virtues, and customary law. As you note, the principle of free speech is codified in law. The underlying value is truth. Without the free exchange of ideas humankind cannot arrive at truth. The same with the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty, without which we cannot arrive at justice, which, in turn, requires ascertaining truth. The practices of free speech and due process are both manifestations of truth-seeking as the virtue by which we find truth. The scientific method is also a codification of truth seeking methods. These people are without principle and seek only power. Truth is their enemy. Evil defined."

Outsourcing censorship to private parties working in lock step with the political establishment isn’t a step up, it’s a step down.

That doesn't make much sense to me. You're not "free" to do X if X is punished by law.

By that logic you're also free to kill your neighbor, you'll just suffer consequences.

That's why freedom of speech and freedom of thought are two different things in France.

You can have all the opinions you want, you just can't go to the town hall and scream about how you want to exterminate the jews

> Freedom of speech is an unconditional universal right given by God to the human race.

Which God ?

Do you also complain about the government taking your rights away when they tell you not to drive the wrong way on the interstate after drinking half a bottle of vodka ?

> And Voltaire would be rolling in his grave.

I don't think you have read much Voltaire by the way, he was very much pro tolerance and anti hate. People love to brandish "freedom of speech" without understanding neither its history nor its meaning.

It's almost comically opposed to hate speech actually, let Voltaire out of this.

I wouldn't be surprised if the only thing you know about Voltaire is this misattributed quote that everybody like to parade with:

> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Please try and tell me/us how it works out. I'm not willing to try.

And, here's the big W on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...

"speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true."

It is not legal, at least in the US, partly due to the quote from the post above.

It will be very hard for anyone to prove that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater comprises a "debate on public issue".

It's also worth mentioning that the Schenck case was about distribution of leaflets with anti-war (WW1) propaganda and encouraging draft dodging. So not only there's an obvious slippery slope in this argument, but it was exercised as soon as it was presented.

To be fair, that just puts it with "those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither", "information wants to be free" and "I'm not my brother's keeper" in the category of aphorisms that are valid as typically used despite their original coinage being in service of bullshit. (Edit: or possibly honest mistakes for the information one; I don't remember offhand.)

So this almost word for word reminds me of the moral panic of the 1990s about political correctness. “There is a professor, he is doing professor thing and he know a bunch about this subject but the students went after him and he wasn’t allowed to continue to teach and now we have less education.”

In reality in those cases there was almost no backlash and in fact everyone treated the professor with kid gloves while what he purported to have done was way worse and what the students had done was way overblown (see the Political Correctness of the excellent podcast called You Are Wrong About). So pardon me if I don’t buy this particular article/story line.

When the people who are championing this theory while presenting no evidence happen to also be very pro-white power, yeah it sure sounds like hate speech. Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t mean you should go by it.

Sorry but how is this a case for debate??? This is not a matter of opinion, it's an extremely serious accusation that a foreign government institution caused a global catastrophe of historic proportions. Do you have the type of incredibly solid evidence that would take to back that type of accusation in court?? If you do, then go to court, if you don't then there's nothing to "debate" unless you are shopping for a defamation lawsuit that is what would be a fair and logical consequence to that type of baseless accusation. People abuse free speech because they are not facing the due legal consequences for all the defamation they incur on. But just because it's hard to prosecute so many offenders doesn't make it right or legal.

6 months

> The Palestinians are getting censored under the mask of "anti-semitism" and the Israelis / christians are getting censored under the mask of "islamaphobic"

Are you comparing Palestinian life under apartheid to Christians getting their "all Muslims are terrorists" Facebook posts deleted?

> Hate speech charges are a serious crime and often see lengthy court time.

I think this is part of the objection, too. The opposition to online hate speech laws seems to be reflective more of an increase in the scope of existing hate-speech laws, which I assume the parent thread would also oppose.

> If you cannot express your inconvenient opinion without being hateful towards or potentially harming a group of people, then that is a problem.

The issue here is that hate speech is a constantly moving target. We're okay with muzzling speech that we consider too far, until something that we don't consider too far gets muzzled as well.