Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
So tell me again how these are different?
If I get accused of using Hate Speech, and prove my words were true, how is this any different than slander? If you say someone slandered you, they will get 'dragged' to defend themselves for just something they said! What a terrible affront to free speech
I can find hundreds of examples where people have claimed offense and the claim is thrown out of court because the hate speech laws are not in any stretch of the imagination to the degree people in this thread are implying.
Well, no, because that's not how Canada's legal system or its government actually work. A member of a majority group (a white person, a Christian, whatever) could easily be reported for and even convicted of hate speech—it happens. Also there's really no kicking parties out in favour of more racist ones, because there are only four parties that matter, none of which are particularly racist (as much as I loathe the Conservatives*, their worst is still nowhere near as bad as the Republicans' worst). This isn't the kind of law that one simply votes on or something. Restrictions on freedom of expression is quite literally in our constitution.
The thing is, the majority of Canadians aren't bloody racists, and their parties reflect that. If the majority of Canadians were racist bigots then the parties would be racist in their views. Parties don't exist in vacuums, they reflect the populace and social acceptable norms. And thus if Canadians were racist bigots by and large, then the law never would have been passed or enforced in the first place. These sort of laws have only come into existence because the populace aren't fundamentally racist.
Quote from "Mikeg542" »
If I get accused of using Hate Speech, and prove my words were true, how is this any different than slander? If you say someone slandered you, they will get 'dragged' to defend themselves for just something they said! What a terrible affront to free speech
So if I called someone black a n*****, i wouldn't be prosecuted, because the word actually refers to a black person and therefore is true?
EDIT: Blinking's post reminded me of another element of such a system that rubs me the wrong way. In the US, you're generally considered innocent, and the prosecution has to prove you guilty. Under this law, it almost feels like the accused has to prove that his comment was not hate speech, which seems to me backwards.
I take issue with your second paragraph. A lot of crimes between races, especially crimes where the perpetrator is white and the victim is a minority, often get the "hate crime" label added to them. True, some of these are legitimately "hate crimes." But plenty of them aren't, and "hate crime" is added solely to appease certain elements of our society.
(and yes, in the United States Republicans ARE the majority, 2:1 over Democrats). .
First of all http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Democrats lead republicans in registered voters, both in those with official party affiliations and when counting independents that "lean" one way or another. Sorry if reality has a liberal bias, but republican do not, in any way, represent a majority of the population (neither party does), and they do not outnumber democrats, certainly not 2:1. Republicans make up a little over 1/4 of the population, and democrats a little over 1/3, with independents not breaking decisively in favor of either party (though slightly in favor of dems).
Secondly, it sounds like you are afraid that someone might commit a violent crime and get it "wrongfully" in your eyes rolled into hate crimes, to appease some special interest. Don't be so scared bro. There is no evidence that regular old murderers are being charged with hate crimes, or that bias fueled black on white crime is not being properly prosecuted (pro-tip, hate crime law has been applied to blacks who attack whites for racial reasons). Hate crimes are very specifically defined, and can be easily merged with terrorism laws. An overzealous prosecute or incompetent judge may incorrectly apply hate crime law, but the same can be said for terrorism, or murder (prosecutors often push for 1st degree even when its clearly second degree, or even manslaughter). We have an appeals system for that sort of mistake, and a jury can always find not guilty if they are not convinced the law applies. If you are so scared of prosecutors screwing up well thought out hate crime laws, you should be against terrorism laws, and really criminal laws in general. As that is absurd, the more likely cause of your antipathy towards them is either a worry that they will somehow be applied to you, or that you dislike the fact that vulnerable groups that you do not like are being protected.
Nobody is going to lock you up for hating gays or being an idiot, so don't worry. You are perfectly free to express your beliefs, just don't kick anybody's ass for being black or gay and you'll be fine. Unless you want people to be able to terrorize minorities, in which case I understand your problem with the law. Honestly though, I'd think you would have more sympathy for those hated groups who are marginalized in society, being a brony and all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
So tell me again how these are different?
While I'm not an expert on Canadian law, Wiki seems to indicate that truth is not a defense to matters brought before the Canadian Human Rights Comission.
"Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has also criticized Section 13(1). He cited an example of the book Hitler's Willing Executioners, which alleges the complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust, and said that the thesis is arguably "likely to expose" German people to contempt, and therefore be a violation of Section 13(1).[1]
Borovoy also noted that under Section 13(1), "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."[1] He has said that when he and other human rights activists advocated the creation of human rights commissions they "never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech" [3] and that censorship was not the role he had envisioned for the commissions.[4]"
"Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."
Where section 319 is "Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, 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; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."
If you called someone a racial slur, this is not Hate Speech. If you said 'All members of racial slur are ..... and should be killed/removed/have rights taken away'. Then it becomes hate speech.
The vast majority of times people accuse others of hate speech, the claim is thrown out quite quickly, and it's not like we have to watch our backs or be dragged in front of a shadowy panel and interrogated.
There is no part of this process that ignores the western judicial tradition of innocent until proven guilty. The accuser has to make their case (which is often ignored/thrown out) and if it is deemed strong enough, the defender is allowed to attempt to prove one or more of those things that would make them not guilty. AND THEN, if it is considered hate speech, the person is generally fined.
Example case:
"In 2003, in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew with wilfully inciting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. In 2005, the Provincial Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000.[4] In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal. On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew's remarks were "revolting, disgusting, and untrue," but they did not constitute "promoting hatred." [5]"
Edit:
Section 13(1) deals with "communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet:"
I don't really agree with policing the internet. However, almost all countries have rules regarding websites you can host there or view there. This is just a small extension of that.
"Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."
Where section 319 is "Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, 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; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."
If you called someone a racial slur, this is not Hate Speech. If you said 'All members of racial slur are ..... and should be killed/removed/have rights taken away'. Then it becomes hate speech.
The vast majority of times people accuse others of hate speech, the claim is thrown out quite quickly, and it's not like we have to watch our backs or be dragged in front of a shadowy panel and interrogated.
There is no part of this process that ignores the western judicial tradition of innocent until proven guilty. The accuser has to make their case (which is often ignored/thrown out) and if it is deemed strong enough, the defender is allowed to attempt to prove one or more of those things that would make them not guilty. AND THEN, if it is considered hate speech, the person is generally fined.
Example case:
"In 2003, in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew with wilfully inciting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. In 2005, the Provincial Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000.[4] In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal. On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew's remarks were "revolting, disgusting, and untrue," but they did not constitute "promoting hatred." [5]"
Edit:
Section 13(1) deals with "communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet:"
I don't really agree with policing the internet. However, almost all countries have rules regarding websites you can host there or view there. This is just a small extension of that.
The Canadian Human rights Commission doesn't deal with criminal acts, so the criminal code is irrelevant. The CHRC is a quasi-judicial body that is established to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act. One of the largest complaints levied against it is that people can be brought in front of it for acts that don't violate any criminal statutes!
It wasn't long ago that Copernicus was considered a heretic, and his words were banned by the Catholic Church because of such heresy.
It wasn't long ago that Galileo found himself on the same end with Copernicus over his own scientific theories.
It wasn't long ago when in German culture one could not speak favorably of or act in support of Jews, Gypsies, and other minority groups because the ruling establishment made it verboten.
We can say it's all for tolerance, but the reality is censorship in any way of free speech is an assault not just on freedom, but of tolerance. People say intolerant speech is about as bad as it can get short of acting on it. We are quick to drown out such groups such as Westboro Baptist Church when they preach their hatred. The Supreme Court upheld that they are 100% entitled under the Constitution to continue to preach it, that to censor them because of it begins a cascade of legislation that will spiral out of control very quickly.
The United States fought to through off the yoke of tyranny. Tyranny will always begin with the removal of freedoms: speech, assembly, the right to bear arms, etc. It is why we hold the Bill of Rights so high in our culture: it guarantees us the right to say what we want without the government censoring us. Sure, you have limits: you can't, for instance, commit sedition.
The term "racist" is thrown out so quickly it's not even a joke anymore. Speak ill of President Obama and his policies, many liberals will deem you a racist. The Tea Party? According to extremely liberal democrats and many in the "mainstream media" they are racist as well. Hell, the only people confirmed to be committing such thins at Tea Party rallies were members of a group called "Democratic Underground" who decided the only way to bring down the TEA Party was to "infiltrate" rallies, make sure cameras were on them, and then hold up racist signs or scream racial epithets. Remember Jason Levin?
Yet when members of Occupy Wall Street are caught on camera saying we need to "kick the Zionist Jews out of the country". To quote:
Quote from Patricia McAllister »
“I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government… they need to be run out of this country.”
But the mainstream media downplayed it. It was one person, they said. They don't speak for the entire group! And when the TEA Party said the people didn't speak for the entire group? When there was a confirmed attempt nationwide to discredit the group by infiltrating it and posing as racists? Clearly, they were lying.
Canada can have their censorship laws if they want. That is what it boils down to. Religion, government, whatever it is. When you give people the ability to control what you think and say, you are taking away your own ability to be human.
The most intolerant people in the world are the ones preaching the need to be tolerant, but damn you if you don't agree with them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Are you expecting me to just say "Oh, there's a part of this overarching theme that I disagree with, therefore the rest is bunk"?
I already said I don't really agree with policing the internet, and people have tried (and if Canadians decided they wanted it to succeed it would) to remove that section. The problem that seems to arise from it is not the law itself, but how it is enforced, and I do agree that when you give judicial power outside the judicial system, there can be abuses.
The accuser has to make their case (which is often ignored/thrown out) and if it is deemed strong enough, the defender is allowed to attempt to prove one or more of those things that would make them not guilty.
The accuser has to make a case to go forward with a trial for any crime. If I say you committed a crime, I have to convince a judge or a grand jury that there is enough evidence to indict you. Only after you have been indicted does the actual trial begin. Other nations use different specific procedures, but the overall screening effect is the same; it's nothing special. The key point is, even after you've been indicted and put on trial, it is still my burden to prove you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You aren't "allowed the attempt" to prove you're not guilty; you don't need to prove you're not guilty at all. I need to prove you're guilty.
So what you're describing here actually is an inversion of the presumption of innocence. And I find it somewhat distressing that you don't realize it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Are you expecting me to just say "Oh, there's a part of this overarching theme that I disagree with, therefore the rest is bunk"?
I already said I don't really agree with policing the internet, and people have tried (and if Canadians decided they wanted it to succeed it would) to remove that section.
It's not a matter of "I disagree with censoring the Internet".
It's a matter of symptoms: The fact that the CHRC can even exist is a symptom of a much larger problem. And that problem is a disregard for freedom of speech.
The problem that seems to arise from it is not the law itself, but how it is enforced, and I do agree that when you give judicial power outside the judicial system, there can be abuses.
The problem is from the law itself, because the law establishes how it is enforced. It is routinely used to shut down and silence dissenting viewpoints, merely because some people might be offended by those viewpoints. Quite frankly it completely boggles my mind that you don't see that as a problem.
There is no part of this process that ignores the western judicial tradition of innocent until proven guilty. The accuser has to make their case (which is often ignored/thrown out) and if it is deemed strong enough, the defender is allowed to attempt to prove one or more of those things that would make them not guilty. AND THEN, if it is considered hate speech, the person is generally fined.
Ok, my bad. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm just generally confused though. The way Teia was describing it earlier, this sounded like a law that was designed to combat racism in general. But based on your post, we're only talking about the most absurdly extreme examples. Racial slurs still fly, saying harrassing things like "God hates XYZs" still is clear; this is for extreme stuff. My question though, is why even bother restricting that sort of speech? The vast majority of minority harassment and slurring isn't actually fought by this law. People who commit suicide or the like over racial or LGBT slurs are generally doing so due to constant everyday harassment, not because they listened to some d***wad calling for group XYZ to have their rights taken away. I mean, to use the WBC, would a gay person look at them and think: "hmm, these fringe nut-jobs say horrible things about me, they're obviously on to something." No, any sane person should be able to recognize that idiots are idiots, and limiting their rights to spout idiocy doesn't actually do all that much to alleviate racism.
I mean this reminds me of the whole flag burning debate in the US, where they ruled that burning the flag was an acceptable expression of free speech, because, even though everyone agreed it's a rude and disrespectful thing to do, it's not worth banning something like because of the precedent it sets.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
The problem is from the law itself, because the law establishes how it is enforced. It is routinely used to shut down and silence dissenting viewpoints, merely because some people might be offended by those viewpoints. Quite frankly it completely boggles my mind that you don't see that as a problem.
Prove it.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
The accuser has to make a case to go forward with a trial for any crime. If I say you committed a crime, I have to convince a judge or a grand jury that there is enough evidence to indict you. Only after you have been indicted does the actual trial begin. Other nations use different specific procedures, but the overall screening effect is the same; it's nothing special. The key point is, even after you've been indicted and put on trial, it is still my burden to prove you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You aren't "allowed the attempt" to prove you're not guilty; you don't need to prove you're not guilty at all. I need to prove you're guilty.
So what you're describing here actually is an inversion of the presumption of innocence. And I find it somewhat distressing that you don't realize it.
In a crime such as murder, the state (or whatever body is in charge of it) has to prove the crime was commited by the defendant and the defendant gives reasons why they are innocent. In a hate speech trial it's exactly the same, so I'm sorry if my words could be interpreted differently.
I'm just generally confused though. The way Teia was describing it earlier, this sounded like a law that was designed to combat racism in general. But based on your post, we're only talking about the most absurdly extreme examples. Racial slurs still fly, saying harrassing things like "God hates XYZs" still is clear; this is for extreme stuff. My question though, is why even bother restricting that sort of speech? The vast majority of minority harassment and slurring isn't actually fought by this law. People who commit suicide or the like over racial or LGBT slurs are generally doing so due to constant everyday harassment, not because they listened to some d***wad calling for group XYZ to have their rights taken away. I mean, to use the WBC, would a gay person look at them and think: "hmm, these fringe nut-jobs say horrible things about me, they're obviously on to something." No, any sane person should be able to recognize that idiots are idiots, and limiting their rights to spout idiocy doesn't actually do all that much to alleviate racism.
I mean this reminds me of the whole flag burning debate in the US, where they ruled that burning the flag was an acceptable expression of free speech, because, even though everyone agreed it's a rude and disrespectful thing to do, it's not worth banning something like because of the precedent it sets.
Groups like the KKK, white supremists or the WBC are the sort 'censored' by this law. These are groups that can just rally around their hatred of an identifiable group and cause members of those groups to actually fear for their safety (whether or not a threat of violence is actually uttered). Many people who commit suicide WERE hurt in a manner that would be considered against the law (harrassment, assault etc.) These groups aren't common, but they are definitely present enough to be a problem.
In 1997, London, Ont. mayor Dianne Haskett refused to proclaim a Gay Pride Day or to fly the rainbow flag on city property. A complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which later ruled she had to proclaim such a day. Adjudicator Mary Anne McKellar dismissed the legal argument of Haskett and the city that requiring they proclaim a Gay Pride Day violated their prerogative to make political decisions and infringed on their freedom of political speech. Haskett said proclaiming such a day would be seen as an official endorsement of the organizer’s agenda. The city was fined $10,000 and ordered to proclaim Gay Pride Day. (Notably, Haskett was re-elected mere weeks after the decision was rendered.)
That same year, the city of Kelowna, B.C., issued a proclamation for Gay and Lesbian Day, while omitting the word “pride.” A complaint was lodged against mayor Walter Gray and three years later, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found Gray violated the province’s human rights code, because the exclusion of the word pride was “tantamount to a public insult, one which is mean-spirited, short-sighted, and damaging to positive, respectful relations between all people.” Gray responded by refusing to declare city proclamations, period. He was later re-elected with over 95 per cent of the vote.
In Ontario, Mississauga printer Scott Brockie was hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 1998 for refusing to print promotional material for the Gay and Lesbian Archives. He had done business with homosexual clients before, but never for jobs that promoted their political causes, which would violate his Christian belief that homosexual actions are morally wrong. By politely declining the GLA’s job, he set into motion a series of events that cost him time and treasure – more than $100,000 and a half-decade defending himself first before the tribunal and then in the courts. In the end, he lost, had to pay a $5,000 fine and pledge to never refuse work from the GLA or another gay activist group again. Brockie refused to abide by the decision and challenged it in court – where he lost.
You really should check out the quote link, It's not isolated incidents.
...and the defendant gives reasons why they are innocent.
No. Or to be more precise, not necessarily. If the defendant can give reasons why they are innocent, then good for them. But all they need to do is convince the judge or jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No. Or to be more precise, not necessarily. If the defendant can give reasons why they are innocent, then good for them. But all they need to do is convince the judge or jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof.
So I'm somehow enforcing an unjust law because you want to be excessively obstinate. You know what I meant.
Groups like the KKK, white supremists or the WBC are the sort 'censored' by this law. These are groups that can just rally around their hatred of an identifiable group and cause members of those groups to actually fear for their safety (whether or not a threat of violence is actually uttered).
Wait, so the defending party only has to claim fear of harm? That would be like asking for someone to be arrested because they were walking down the street looking grumpy with a holstered gun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
So I'm somehow enforcing an unjust law because you want to be excessively obstinate. You know what I meant.
No, I don't know what you meant. The law you're trying to justify explicitly requires that the accused establish he was telling the truth. This is not the regular way defamation law, or law in general, works. You asked how your law was any different from defamation law. This is how. (And we haven't even begun to talk about demonstrating harm.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
MY point was not that you can accuse someone of hate speech because you fear harm (though people call 911 all the time because of this exact thing). My point was that you call these people 'extreme cases' and that it is the minor harrassment that leads to suicide but I am saying that someone saying "I don't really like gay people" doesn't instill fear in anyone, but "God hates ***s and they will all burn in hell and are abominations on earth", is to a degree where it would be hard not to be afraid.
@B_S
"To convict anyone under the Code, very specific proof is required: both of the criminal act itself, and of the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn’t enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the Code exactly, and if they did it deliberately." -> if the courts can't prove the speech/act isn't one of a/b/c/d, they won't convict. As has been the case in many such trials.
So I'm somehow enforcing an unjust law because you want to be excessively obstinate. You know what I meant.
What you have described is the type of draconian law system found in countries like the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea. When the defendant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not commit the crime, then the government sits back and says, "He did it, I don't need to prove it." This goes contrary to common law systems which all Commonwealth nations - and the United States - are founded upon.
But as I was going to say originally, you can tout your "progressive" superiority over us Americans. That's absolutely fine. But when you are putting in place a court whose sole purpose is to say, "BE TOLERANT OR YOU WILL BE A CRIMINAL", you have effectively become one of the most intolerant nations in the world. When the government decides what you can and can't say, and criminalizes free speech and expression, you are no longer free. You are subject to whims of your government.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
MY point was not that you can accuse someone of hate speech because you fear harm (though people call 911 all the time because of this exact thing). My point was that you call these people 'extreme cases' and that it is the minor harrassment that leads to suicide but I am saying that someone saying "I don't really like gay people" doesn't instill fear in anyone, but "God hates ***s and they will all burn in hell and are abominations on earth", is to a degree where it would be hard not to be afraid.
And you're statement would be a reasonable statement (altough one I would still have some issues with) if the various Canadian human rights comissions weren't actively investigating and fining the people saying "I really don't like gay people."
MY point was not that you can accuse someone of hate speech because you fear harm (though people call 911 all the time because of this exact thing). My point was that you call these people 'extreme cases' and that it is the minor harrassment that leads to suicide but I am saying that someone saying "I don't really like gay people" doesn't instill fear in anyone, but "God hates ***s and they will all burn in hell and are abominations on earth", is to a degree where it would be hard not to be afraid.
Fair enough, but under the law's description, this wouldn't be something prosecutable. It isn't encouraging genocide, murder, or any illegal action. It's a d***a** thing to say, but it doesn't violate the law as far as I can tell, based on how you described it. Or did I miss something?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
And you're statement would be a reasonable statement (altough one I would still have some issues with) if the various Canadian human rights comissions weren't actively investigating and fining the people saying "I really don't like gay people."
I see examples where people are being fined for DISCRIMINATING against them. I certainly haven't seen any form not liking them. (and yes I read your links in their entirety).
Fair enough, but under the law's description, this wouldn't be something prosecutable. It isn't encouraging genocide, murder, or any illegal action. It's a d***a** thing to say, but it doesn't violate the law as far as I can tell, based on how you described it. Or did I miss something?
Yeah, it's the section 319 part:
Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred
The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:
communicate statements,
in a public place,
incite hatred against an identifiable group,
in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
Just as an aside, I DO have problems with the CHRC, I do not, however, have problems with the main sections in the criminal code. I would support an initiative to remove/change the CHRA
I see examples where people are being fined for DISCRIMINATING against them. I certainly haven't seen any form not liking them. (and yes I read your links in their entirety).
Given your response here, somehow I doubt that.
It is not discrimination to refuse to print propaganda you disagree with. It is not discrimination to refuse to rent your hall to a couple that are in blatant disregard to your sinceerely held religious beliefs.
If anything, the people being discriminated against here are the ones being hauled before the pseudo-we-couldn't-get-a-real-criminal-charge-to-stick-but-we-want-to-punish-you-so-we'll-do-this-instead joke of a "commission".
It is blatant, repeated, and explicit discrimination and violations of individuals freedom of speech in the name of anti-hate speech.
Yeah, it's the section 319 part:
Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred
The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:
communicate statements,
in a public place,
incite hatred against an identifiable group,
in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
Two disputes I would have with this:
1.) How would this be likely to cause a breach of the peace? Are they expecting the person affronted to pull out a gun and start shooting people?
2.) You listed four exceptions to this rule:
Where section 319 is "Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, 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; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."
All this person has to do is pull out a bible, and point to homophobic passages and make the claim that it was an argument based on faith (b), or that this shows that God does hate group XYZ, and is therefore true (a).
So tell me again how these are different?
If I get accused of using Hate Speech, and prove my words were true, how is this any different than slander? If you say someone slandered you, they will get 'dragged' to defend themselves for just something they said! What a terrible affront to free speech
I can find hundreds of examples where people have claimed offense and the claim is thrown out of court because the hate speech laws are not in any stretch of the imagination to the degree people in this thread are implying.
In the U.S., at least, the burden is on the accuser to establish that the statements communicated were false. And also harmful. And malicious.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The thing is, the majority of Canadians aren't bloody racists, and their parties reflect that. If the majority of Canadians were racist bigots then the parties would be racist in their views. Parties don't exist in vacuums, they reflect the populace and social acceptable norms. And thus if Canadians were racist bigots by and large, then the law never would have been passed or enforced in the first place. These sort of laws have only come into existence because the populace aren't fundamentally racist.
So if I called someone black a n*****, i wouldn't be prosecuted, because the word actually refers to a black person and therefore is true?
EDIT: Blinking's post reminded me of another element of such a system that rubs me the wrong way. In the US, you're generally considered innocent, and the prosecution has to prove you guilty. Under this law, it almost feels like the accused has to prove that his comment was not hate speech, which seems to me backwards.
First of all http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Democrats lead republicans in registered voters, both in those with official party affiliations and when counting independents that "lean" one way or another. Sorry if reality has a liberal bias, but republican do not, in any way, represent a majority of the population (neither party does), and they do not outnumber democrats, certainly not 2:1. Republicans make up a little over 1/4 of the population, and democrats a little over 1/3, with independents not breaking decisively in favor of either party (though slightly in favor of dems).
Secondly, it sounds like you are afraid that someone might commit a violent crime and get it "wrongfully" in your eyes rolled into hate crimes, to appease some special interest. Don't be so scared bro. There is no evidence that regular old murderers are being charged with hate crimes, or that bias fueled black on white crime is not being properly prosecuted (pro-tip, hate crime law has been applied to blacks who attack whites for racial reasons). Hate crimes are very specifically defined, and can be easily merged with terrorism laws. An overzealous prosecute or incompetent judge may incorrectly apply hate crime law, but the same can be said for terrorism, or murder (prosecutors often push for 1st degree even when its clearly second degree, or even manslaughter). We have an appeals system for that sort of mistake, and a jury can always find not guilty if they are not convinced the law applies. If you are so scared of prosecutors screwing up well thought out hate crime laws, you should be against terrorism laws, and really criminal laws in general. As that is absurd, the more likely cause of your antipathy towards them is either a worry that they will somehow be applied to you, or that you dislike the fact that vulnerable groups that you do not like are being protected.
Nobody is going to lock you up for hating gays or being an idiot, so don't worry. You are perfectly free to express your beliefs, just don't kick anybody's ass for being black or gay and you'll be fine. Unless you want people to be able to terrorize minorities, in which case I understand your problem with the law. Honestly though, I'd think you would have more sympathy for those hated groups who are marginalized in society, being a brony and all.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
While I'm not an expert on Canadian law, Wiki seems to indicate that truth is not a defense to matters brought before the Canadian Human Rights Comission.
"Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has also criticized Section 13(1). He cited an example of the book Hitler's Willing Executioners, which alleges the complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust, and said that the thesis is arguably "likely to expose" German people to contempt, and therefore be a violation of Section 13(1).[1]
Borovoy also noted that under Section 13(1), "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."[1] He has said that when he and other human rights activists advocated the creation of human rights commissions they "never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech" [3] and that censorship was not the role he had envisioned for the commissions.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies
Indeed, it looks like section 13(1) of the Canadian Human rights act is what is relevant. And that does not allow for "truth" as a defense.
"Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."
Where section 319 is "Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, 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; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."
If you called someone a racial slur, this is not Hate Speech. If you said 'All members of racial slur are ..... and should be killed/removed/have rights taken away'. Then it becomes hate speech.
The vast majority of times people accuse others of hate speech, the claim is thrown out quite quickly, and it's not like we have to watch our backs or be dragged in front of a shadowy panel and interrogated.
There is no part of this process that ignores the western judicial tradition of innocent until proven guilty. The accuser has to make their case (which is often ignored/thrown out) and if it is deemed strong enough, the defender is allowed to attempt to prove one or more of those things that would make them not guilty. AND THEN, if it is considered hate speech, the person is generally fined.
Example case:
"In 2003, in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew with wilfully inciting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. In 2005, the Provincial Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000.[4] In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal. On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew's remarks were "revolting, disgusting, and untrue," but they did not constitute "promoting hatred." [5]"
Edit:
Section 13(1) deals with "communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet:"
I don't really agree with policing the internet. However, almost all countries have rules regarding websites you can host there or view there. This is just a small extension of that.
The Canadian Human rights Commission doesn't deal with criminal acts, so the criminal code is irrelevant. The CHRC is a quasi-judicial body that is established to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act. One of the largest complaints levied against it is that people can be brought in front of it for acts that don't violate any criminal statutes!
It wasn't long ago that Galileo found himself on the same end with Copernicus over his own scientific theories.
It wasn't long ago when in German culture one could not speak favorably of or act in support of Jews, Gypsies, and other minority groups because the ruling establishment made it verboten.
We can say it's all for tolerance, but the reality is censorship in any way of free speech is an assault not just on freedom, but of tolerance. People say intolerant speech is about as bad as it can get short of acting on it. We are quick to drown out such groups such as Westboro Baptist Church when they preach their hatred. The Supreme Court upheld that they are 100% entitled under the Constitution to continue to preach it, that to censor them because of it begins a cascade of legislation that will spiral out of control very quickly.
The United States fought to through off the yoke of tyranny. Tyranny will always begin with the removal of freedoms: speech, assembly, the right to bear arms, etc. It is why we hold the Bill of Rights so high in our culture: it guarantees us the right to say what we want without the government censoring us. Sure, you have limits: you can't, for instance, commit sedition.
The term "racist" is thrown out so quickly it's not even a joke anymore. Speak ill of President Obama and his policies, many liberals will deem you a racist. The Tea Party? According to extremely liberal democrats and many in the "mainstream media" they are racist as well. Hell, the only people confirmed to be committing such thins at Tea Party rallies were members of a group called "Democratic Underground" who decided the only way to bring down the TEA Party was to "infiltrate" rallies, make sure cameras were on them, and then hold up racist signs or scream racial epithets. Remember Jason Levin?
Yet when members of Occupy Wall Street are caught on camera saying we need to "kick the Zionist Jews out of the country". To quote:
But the mainstream media downplayed it. It was one person, they said. They don't speak for the entire group! And when the TEA Party said the people didn't speak for the entire group? When there was a confirmed attempt nationwide to discredit the group by infiltrating it and posing as racists? Clearly, they were lying.
Canada can have their censorship laws if they want. That is what it boils down to. Religion, government, whatever it is. When you give people the ability to control what you think and say, you are taking away your own ability to be human.
The most intolerant people in the world are the ones preaching the need to be tolerant, but damn you if you don't agree with them.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I already said I don't really agree with policing the internet, and people have tried (and if Canadians decided they wanted it to succeed it would) to remove that section. The problem that seems to arise from it is not the law itself, but how it is enforced, and I do agree that when you give judicial power outside the judicial system, there can be abuses.
The accuser has to make a case to go forward with a trial for any crime. If I say you committed a crime, I have to convince a judge or a grand jury that there is enough evidence to indict you. Only after you have been indicted does the actual trial begin. Other nations use different specific procedures, but the overall screening effect is the same; it's nothing special. The key point is, even after you've been indicted and put on trial, it is still my burden to prove you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You aren't "allowed the attempt" to prove you're not guilty; you don't need to prove you're not guilty at all. I need to prove you're guilty.
So what you're describing here actually is an inversion of the presumption of innocence. And I find it somewhat distressing that you don't realize it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's not a matter of "I disagree with censoring the Internet".
It's a matter of symptoms: The fact that the CHRC can even exist is a symptom of a much larger problem. And that problem is a disregard for freedom of speech.
The problem is from the law itself, because the law establishes how it is enforced. It is routinely used to shut down and silence dissenting viewpoints, merely because some people might be offended by those viewpoints. Quite frankly it completely boggles my mind that you don't see that as a problem.
Ok, my bad. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm just generally confused though. The way Teia was describing it earlier, this sounded like a law that was designed to combat racism in general. But based on your post, we're only talking about the most absurdly extreme examples. Racial slurs still fly, saying harrassing things like "God hates XYZs" still is clear; this is for extreme stuff. My question though, is why even bother restricting that sort of speech? The vast majority of minority harassment and slurring isn't actually fought by this law. People who commit suicide or the like over racial or LGBT slurs are generally doing so due to constant everyday harassment, not because they listened to some d***wad calling for group XYZ to have their rights taken away. I mean, to use the WBC, would a gay person look at them and think: "hmm, these fringe nut-jobs say horrible things about me, they're obviously on to something." No, any sane person should be able to recognize that idiots are idiots, and limiting their rights to spout idiocy doesn't actually do all that much to alleviate racism.
I mean this reminds me of the whole flag burning debate in the US, where they ruled that burning the flag was an acceptable expression of free speech, because, even though everyone agreed it's a rude and disrespectful thing to do, it's not worth banning something like because of the precedent it sets.
Prove it.
In a crime such as murder, the state (or whatever body is in charge of it) has to prove the crime was commited by the defendant and the defendant gives reasons why they are innocent. In a hate speech trial it's exactly the same, so I'm sorry if my words could be interpreted differently.
Groups like the KKK, white supremists or the WBC are the sort 'censored' by this law. These are groups that can just rally around their hatred of an identifiable group and cause members of those groups to actually fear for their safety (whether or not a threat of violence is actually uttered). Many people who commit suicide WERE hurt in a manner that would be considered against the law (harrassment, assault etc.) These groups aren't common, but they are definitely present enough to be a problem.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/27/canadas_clampdown_on_free_speech/?comments=all#readerComm <-- An Coultier was prevented from doing a speaking engagement because of legal threats against her, despite the fact that she doesn't advocate violence against any of the people classes she dislikes.
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/canadian-human-rights-commissions-bear-down-on-christian-clergymen/ <-- Christian leaders being hammered by the CHRC, despite explicitly falling in one of the allowable exceptions listed in the criminal code.
Should I keep grabbing them?
You really should check out the quote link, It's not isolated incidents.
No. Or to be more precise, not necessarily. If the defendant can give reasons why they are innocent, then good for them. But all they need to do is convince the judge or jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So I'm somehow enforcing an unjust law because you want to be excessively obstinate. You know what I meant.
Wait, so the defending party only has to claim fear of harm? That would be like asking for someone to be arrested because they were walking down the street looking grumpy with a holstered gun.
No, I don't know what you meant. The law you're trying to justify explicitly requires that the accused establish he was telling the truth. This is not the regular way defamation law, or law in general, works. You asked how your law was any different from defamation law. This is how. (And we haven't even begun to talk about demonstrating harm.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wait, what? (@Quirkiness)
MY point was not that you can accuse someone of hate speech because you fear harm (though people call 911 all the time because of this exact thing). My point was that you call these people 'extreme cases' and that it is the minor harrassment that leads to suicide but I am saying that someone saying "I don't really like gay people" doesn't instill fear in anyone, but "God hates ***s and they will all burn in hell and are abominations on earth", is to a degree where it would be hard not to be afraid.
@B_S
"To convict anyone under the Code, very specific proof is required: both of the criminal act itself, and of the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn’t enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the Code exactly, and if they did it deliberately." -> if the courts can't prove the speech/act isn't one of a/b/c/d, they won't convict. As has been the case in many such trials.
What you have described is the type of draconian law system found in countries like the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea. When the defendant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not commit the crime, then the government sits back and says, "He did it, I don't need to prove it." This goes contrary to common law systems which all Commonwealth nations - and the United States - are founded upon.
But as I was going to say originally, you can tout your "progressive" superiority over us Americans. That's absolutely fine. But when you are putting in place a court whose sole purpose is to say, "BE TOLERANT OR YOU WILL BE A CRIMINAL", you have effectively become one of the most intolerant nations in the world. When the government decides what you can and can't say, and criminalizes free speech and expression, you are no longer free. You are subject to whims of your government.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
And you're statement would be a reasonable statement (altough one I would still have some issues with) if the various Canadian human rights comissions weren't actively investigating and fining the people saying "I really don't like gay people."
Fair enough, but under the law's description, this wouldn't be something prosecutable. It isn't encouraging genocide, murder, or any illegal action. It's a d***a** thing to say, but it doesn't violate the law as far as I can tell, based on how you described it. Or did I miss something?
I see examples where people are being fined for DISCRIMINATING against them. I certainly haven't seen any form not liking them. (and yes I read your links in their entirety).
Yeah, it's the section 319 part:
Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred
The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:
communicate statements,
in a public place,
incite hatred against an identifiable group,
in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
Just as an aside, I DO have problems with the CHRC, I do not, however, have problems with the main sections in the criminal code. I would support an initiative to remove/change the CHRA
Given your response here, somehow I doubt that.
It is not discrimination to refuse to print propaganda you disagree with. It is not discrimination to refuse to rent your hall to a couple that are in blatant disregard to your sinceerely held religious beliefs.
If anything, the people being discriminated against here are the ones being hauled before the pseudo-we-couldn't-get-a-real-criminal-charge-to-stick-but-we-want-to-punish-you-so-we'll-do-this-instead joke of a "commission".
It is blatant, repeated, and explicit discrimination and violations of individuals freedom of speech in the name of anti-hate speech.
Two disputes I would have with this:
1.) How would this be likely to cause a breach of the peace? Are they expecting the person affronted to pull out a gun and start shooting people?
2.) You listed four exceptions to this rule: