We already have laws about inciting to violence as I understand it, which is justifiable. This makes it an offence to "expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination".
For example (from wiki), the two most relevant existing laws would be:
> Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15]
> Section 319(2): Promoting hatred—makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15]
What the planned legislation does is take the current working definition of hate speech (as set by Canada's Supreme Court) and put it into law, as well as (effectively) defining the relationship between online speech, and the public/private statements in the existing law.
And it raises the question of what "likely to lead to a breach of the peace" means. Hindsight is one thing. But does the law imply a proverbial "reasonable person" standard in advance?
Regarding 319(2), by saying "identifiable group", it sounds like it is covering all political groups or parties. Canadians are more polite, I know, but it seems like at this point 319(2) would cover virtually everything that passes for political discourse south of the border.
I wouldn't assume these are enforced as written, or as they appear to me to be written.
But if they were, they seem kind of extreme. Not because I'm insisting on the arbitrary standard of the US first amendment, but they do seem very broad.
> 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...).
It still seems to me open to interpretation whether promoting hate of political parties is permissible. A political party can be considered a "mental disability" - maybe that seems silly in this context, but it isn't uncommon for partisans to literally say that the party they dislike is a mental illness or made up of the mentally ill.
Furthermore, it seems clear from the list that "identifiable" doesn't necessarily mean visually identifiable. So the concept they had in mind eludes me. In legal writing, sometimes they will list things and say it is "not intended to be exhaustive". So I wonder if the list of identifiable groups is or not.
(And about the "reasonable person standard" - since it is explicitly written into law in some cases, and it has a name, I would expect it isn't always implicit. I am not a lawyer, and realize civil, criminal, American, and other law isn't the same, but the "eggshell rule" seems like an example of how and why the expectation of a "reasonable person" might not be considered an appropriate standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull)
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.
I see where this is going, and sadly some will use the old words to add clout to their hate rather than just espousing as an ignorant fool.
unintended consequences coming soon.
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.
Which is to say I assumed sufficient context was provided as is customary in polite conversation.
I also made it quite clear in the first six words of my comment that I was allowing it might not be, as frequently happens.
Thanks for the elaboration.
The claim that the law regulates only "calling for violence against various groups" doesn't seem to jibe with what I read on the Wikipedia page though.
It mentions promoting, inciting, tending to produce feelings of, hatred. And 319(2) doesn't even appear to me to require the speech to be "likely" to result in violence.
I'm not telling you what the laws should be, how they are enforced, or what effect they have had, because I don't know and don't particularly care.
I'm just interested in what the law is. On my first impression it seems rather broad, and after considering the additional context, it still seems potentially rather broad.
I have an issue with this one. What is it about a religious belief that makes it any more important and protected than an atheistic belief? And how can "sincerely held" be defined? If I make a religion for the sole purpose of hating a group I would otherwise be prohibited from hating, is that OK? What if I indoctrinate somebody into that religion, can they say hate speech and be OK because they're sincerely holding that religious belief?
For a secular belief, you'd probably stick to arguing that it is true, seeing as you sincerely believe it to be true.
Here's a famous cause about it: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2168/in...
Which history is that?
Genuine question - I'm aware of places where speech is suppressed because the justice system is not independent of the political system.
I'm aware of cases where speech is suppressed by the threat of being sued by private individuals.
But where are the cases where hate-speech carve-outs have been abused in democracies?
>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...
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
For instance the ruling against activists boycotting Israel was based on them focusing on a whole country (with kind words like “Israel murderer”) which by definition will englobe unrelated individuals, in a shop targeted at the diaspora.
Think about how it would look if today we had “fuck off China” protests in the middle of Chinatown.
If pro-Uighur activists wore t-shirts that said "long live Xinjiang, boycott China" in Chinatown, do you think they ought to be charged with a crime? Frankly, I find that idea appalling, and I find the conviction of those pro-Palestine activists appalling too.
They did a tad more than that, enough to each get 1000 euros fines. Also it’s not like they’re now in concentration camps, they just got a slap on the hand.
The whole ruling if you care: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000031374097/
The parent correctly warned for the article’s bias, I confirm the author is cherrypicking little parts and blow them up for dramatic effect.
If you question the judicial branch impartiality about this matter, you question the judicial branch itself because there is no reason to trust their impartial judgment in any other matter. If that is the case, I suggest that you make and argument for anarchy instead of this one.
Yes yes, there's "on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." That seems about as firm as a plastic bag blowing through a parking lot. I'm sure that category won't grow larger and larger until it's impossible to criticize the powerful or the status quo at all.
> Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side.
This is not the definition of politics, this is how it is being executed in some places, there are plenty of places where this is not the default method.
> If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them?
This only makes sense if Twitter is your only source of political news/opinion.
You may think the other group is swell but have different opinions on how to get to the same end goal. You may have a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like or what our current one looks like (ie. different perspectives) . None of that includes "fundamentally bad".
See: all parties that have splintered off from a common one. They are still in the same corner but have adjusted their views, strategy or goals. They don't suddenly think their earlier compatriots are evil incarnate.
Willing to be told I’m wrong.
There are two engineers in your company trying to work out the best way to reduce the rate of bugs being introduced into a system. One of them is advocating for pair programming, and the other is advocating for a dedicated testing team. Both are trying to convince the other engineers that their method is best.
They may argue in good faith. They may resort to calling the other silly names. This is politics on a local scale. There's nothing to imply that the other side is evil, immoral, or even wrong. The fact that current democratic politics has devolved into mudslinging isn't an inherent fact of politics - it just seems to be an effective way to win these days.
It might be a moral disagreement if one of them felt more bugs is intrinsically better.
Which is a nice way of saying that this is the beginnings of a new authoritarian and totalitarian age.
It should be very worrying to everyone to see speech be legally punished in the West.
Slippery slopes do exist and this is one.
"The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country."
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.
To have a rational discussion about this when it comes to countries that don't happen to be the US, like in this case, it would probably be good to not act as if these laws were somehow conjured up out of nothing. The United Kingdom, probably having a claim to be one of the world's longest lasting liberal democracies, has laws concerning speech that in many cases go well beyond laws on continental Europe, so any discussion about speech in the Western (and even specifically Anglo) tradition probably should be had on that ground, rather than just vague pointing about slippery slopes.
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.
Not at all.
I claimed any person with common sense can assume that the US "founding fathers" were reacting to something.
And I didn't claim that Americans are or aren't devoid of common sense. You can read it either way.
If you want to claim you have an idea whether the American reaction and discarding of old norms was actually a good idea nor not, you need to have an actual understanding about what the ideas you were discarding were actually for. Otherwise you're actually ignorant, and arrogant and that is a bad long term combination.
"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
This was written in 1944, intended as the preface of the "Animal Farm". It was not published until 1972.
Laws are political.
We seem to have completely lost the meaning of this word. Did you mean something like "controversial"?