# Canada's Bill C-250: Hate Propaganda and Homosexuals

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [September 18, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266 "2003-09-18T01:09:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/21 "2003-09-18T17:48:03Z")

</div>

I’ve got no problem with that. Pretty much everywhere in the civilized world you are prohibited from promoting criminal behavior. If I had some magical book that I waved around saying it told me to kill Jews, or Blacks, or immigrants, or lawyers, or my neighbor I caught hitting on my wife, I’d go to jail. Why should hate groups get a pass for saying that saying that someone should be killed if said someone is a homosexual? Christians are going to pitch a temper tantrum because it’s outlawing one of their last bastions of vitriolic hate-spewing, but tough luck.

I think it says everything you need to know about religious extremists that they see a law that says they’re not allowed to advocate genocide against groups and get their panties in a wad. “What?!?!? We’re not even allowed to talk about murdering people any more?!?! Look what these godless commies are doing to us!”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/22 "2003-09-18T17:53:35Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> I doubt that it is very difficult to find people who would advocate the genocide of homosexuals. I’m just not willing to go look for them while at work. Are you saying if I find a single organization that does, you’ll back this law?

If it isn’t covered under existing law, sure.

Although I would feel more comfortable if the law forbade advocating genocide for any group identifiable by a legal, common characteristic, not just gays. Or extend the current laws against threatening individuals so that they apply to groups as well.

IANACanadian, but in the US, I think hate crimes that single out special groups for protection and not others are a violation of the equal protection clause. IMO.

In other words, I don’t think it is any better to say “All left-handers must die!” than it is to say “Death to gays!”

Don’t do anything that will get you into trouble at work. As I said, I am not a Canadian, don’t advocate genocide for gays, and don’t really have a dog in this fight.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/23 "2003-09-18T21:32:00Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DMC \*  
> As kingpenvin said, the herring is red.

Not quite.

In 2001 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province’s human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a copy of a bumpersticker for a newspaper ad; it included Bible verses with an ‘=’ sign and two men holding hands inside the circle with a slash through it, a universal sign of disapproval. In its ruling, the court held that the interpretation of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code was a “reasonable restriction on the appellant’s **right to freedom of expression and religion** ”.

Two years ago the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized a printer for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocay group. He did not refuse work due to their homosexuality, he refused work because he could not support their advocacy.

With the passage of the change in Candian criminal code, these same men in future would be subject to **criminal** prosecution.

Go ahead, tell me again it’s a red herring. Maybe it’ll sound more convincing this time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/24 "2003-09-18T22:00:45Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by_ **ambushed**  
> For real-world practice, consider paragraph 3: “No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.”
> 
> It is utterly inconceivable that any Attorney General is going to agree to prosecute churches or priests or anyone else who simply quotes or teaches from the Bible.

I hadn’t considred that. A good point. But, like **IzzyR** says,

> [@](#):
>
> There are a lot of things that are politically undoable at one time, but which become attainable over time. And there are all sorts of opportunities for judges to retroactively interpret laws, should the possibility arise

And that’s really what I was concerned about. Of course, we have the cushion of the Charter of Rights, which is supposed to catch all the bad laws when people bring them to the court’s attention. But even that is subject to the the interpretations of judges.

I think it’s clear, though, that all this law does is restrict the promotion of the destruction of homosexuals. And that any speech by a religious figure that is anti-gay, but doesn’t advocate the killing or destruction of homosexuals, would actually be _protected_ under the Charter (religious freedom). They’d also be protected under the Criminal Code, [section **319** (2) and (3)](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41491.html#section-319):

> [@](#):
>
> (2)Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty…  
> . . .  
> (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject

Express a religious opinion, and you’re protected from prosecution for hate speech. Even if it promotes hate.  
So, it looks like the only way this will even be an issue is if a complete wingnut tried to use the section on genocide to attack a religious preacher who wasn’t actually advocating killing gays, but was instead advocating something that could be construed as breaching section **318** (2)(b) (adovcating destructive conditions). And even then, I’m having trouble coming up with anything that could be ‘desctructive to homosexuals’, and not also violate some other laws.

The only potential weak point in the law, then, is **318** (2)(b), and even then, I can’t imagine what could happen that is a commonly-acknowledged religious belief, and yet is genocidal.

Anecdote, for the interested: A couple of weeks ago, I was in a Salvation Army store, and the operator was discussing a petition being circulated by one of the employees, to be sent to the local MP. Apparently, they had the idea that this bill (or maybe some imaginary conflation of this one and the gay marriage legislation being considered) would allow sections of the bible to be declared ‘Hate Literature’, and perhaps be censored, and that the government would use it to force churches to marry homosexuals. “I just think it’s awful that they’re doing this”, the store operator said.  
I didn’t argue, it, mainly becasue I hadn’t yet read the text of the bill; I wouldn’t have known what I was talking about. Sadly, I doubt it would have mattered if I’d shown them the bill itself.

On the subject of ‘unnecessary laws’, I think, first of all, that passing a law that may not be needed now, but that criminalizes something worth criminalizing, is a good plan, since, as **DMC** says, unless they’re already in place, they won’t apply the first time, or the first few times, that somebody does something.

Further, it’s not like they’re drafting up a new law at great length. This is a private member’s bill that add two words to the existing genocide statute.

And why do we have a genocide law, if we already have a murder law? Because the act of counseling someone to kill, oh, **wolfstu** , isn’t quite the same as advocating someone to **kill all the people of that class**. Further, it’s not just the killing, but the ‘destruction of the group’ (Section **318** (2)(b)).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/25 "2003-09-18T22:05:32Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Shodan \*  
> **Although I would feel more comfortable if the law forbade advocating genocide for any group identifiable by a legal, common characteristic, not just gays. Or extend the current laws against threatening individuals so that they apply to groups as well.**

Perhaps you missed this in the OP, but the law **currently** states:

> [@](#):
>
> (4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

All the bill is doing is appending sexual orientation to the other groups already included.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/26 "2003-09-18T22:12:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by NaSultainne \*  
> \*\*In 2001 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province’s human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a copy of a bumpersticker for a newspaper ad; it included Bible verses with an ‘=’ sign and two men holding hands inside the circle with a slash through it, a universal sign of disapproval. In its ruling, the court held that the interpretation of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code was a “reasonable restriction on the appellant’s **right to freedom of expression and religion** ”.
> 
> Two years ago the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized a printer for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocay group. He did not refuse work due to their homosexuality, he refused work because he could not support their advocacy.
> 
> With the passage of the change in Candian criminal code, these same men in future would be subject to **criminal** prosecution.
> 
> Go ahead, tell me again it’s a red herring. Maybe it’ll sound more convincing this time. \*\*

Okay, I’ll go ahead and tell you. It’s a red herring. Bright red.

I have no clue what debate you’re taking part in, but we’re specifically discussing a law which criminalizes the promotion or advocacy of **genocide**. If you wish to trot out other things involving gays and laws that bother you, perhaps you’d like to make a separate thread, since my stance is only applicable to this particular law and the bill being proposed to amend it.

Here is the definition of genocide per the current criminal code:

> [@](#):
>
> (a) killing members of the group; or
> 
> (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Unless you can show that the court used that specific law when dealing with some lame bumpersticker, or some intolerant printshop, your post isn’t a valid rebuttal.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\
**Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/27 "2003-09-18T22:19:55Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by NaSultainne \*  
> Not quite.
> 
> In 2001 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province’s human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a copy of a bumpersticker for a newspaper ad; it included Bible verses with an ‘=’ sign and two men holding hands inside the circle with a slash through it, a universal sign of disapproval. In its ruling, the court held that the interpretation of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code was a “reasonable restriction on the appellant’s **right to freedom of expression and religion** ”.
> 
> Two years ago the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized a printer for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocay group. He did not refuse work due to their homosexuality, he refused work because he could not support their advocacy.
> 
> \*\*With the passage of the change in Candian criminal code, these same men in future would be subject to **criminal** prosecution. \*\*

Emphasis mine.  
Let’s take the first one. The bumper sitcker was submitted to a newspaper, to be printed as an advertisement with the intent of having thousands of people read it. It depicted two homosexuals, and put the “No Circle” around them? Like, the way a protestor might put a red circle and bar around a drawing of a bomb, meaning “Ban Nuclear Weapons”? Or maybe the way a similar symbol with a drawing of a cigarette inside means “None of these things allowed here” or even “You should stop using these things”? Or maybe the way a No-Parking sign means “The actions represented by this image are forbidden”?

So, sounds like something that could easily be taken to mean the ad was advocating the prohibition, destruction, or elimination of men who hold hands. he might have meant ‘Holding hands is immoral’, but it could _very easily_ have meant ‘ban homosexuality’. From the description you provided, I agree with the court that this is a reasonable thing to be restricted. Especially since he was going to communicate it to the masses.  
Now, the second one. This actually has nothing to do with the section of the code in question. By refusing to print letterhead, the printer was hardly advocating

> [@](#):
>
> (a) killing members of the group; or
> 
> (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction

.  
Instead, the printer was simply engaging in descriminatory business practices. “I won’t do business with you, becasue I don’t support you.” Another question altogether.

There is **No way** that I can see that the printer could have been charged under section 318. It has nothing to do with this bill, and belongs in a discussion about the rights of businesses to refuse service to people they hate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2003, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/28 "2003-09-19T06:08:30Z")

</div>

Shodan

> [@](#):
>
> IANACanadian, but in the US, I think hate crimes that single out special groups for protection and not others are a violation of the equal protection clause. IMO.

I’ll assume you mean “law against hate crimes…”. Such laws would be unconstitutional. Can you cite any such laws?

DMC

> [@](#):
>
> While I don’t agree with that necessarily, apparently they don’t apply that standard to themselves. This is from their “Goals” page:

Your understanding of the word “hypocrisy” appears seriously flawed. Just what is hypocritical about saying that we don’t need special laws to outlaw something that is already illegal, but we should oppose discrimination?

> [@](#):
>
> Okay, I’ll go ahead and tell you. It’s a red herring. Bright red.
> 
> I have no clue what debate you’re taking part in, but we’re specifically discussing a law which criminalizes the promotion or advocacy of genocide.

The claim was that it was a red herring **because religious expression is protected**. NaSultainne’s expamples show that religious expression is not protected.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2003, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/29 "2003-09-19T12:24:20Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*  
> \*\*The claim was that it was a red herring **because religious expression is protected**. NaSultainne’s expamples show that religious expression is not protected. \*\*

As I said in the post right above yours, **NaSultainne** ’s examples are flawed. The second one has _nothing to do with the law we’re discussing_ (and if you think it interferes with religious expression, you’re not going to change that by opposing this law). The first one isn’t associated with any cite, so the best we can go on is **NaSultainne** ’s description. And his description is of something that could very easily have been perceived as a _direct threat against homosexuals_. Imagine if somebody published a newspaper add with a “No Muslims” or “No Black People” sign, similar to the symbol described. Is that not over the line?

Now, I see that in my earlier post where I showed that hateful, hate-filled religious speech is acutally _specifically_ protected against prosectution as “hate speech”, I left out a key line of the relevant section of the code. I’ll repeat it for you, this time with the line reinserted and underlined:

> [@](#):
>
> I think it’s clear, though, that all this law does is restrict the promotion of the destruction of homosexuals. And that any speech by a religious figure that is anti-gay, but doesn’t advocate the killing or destruction of homosexuals, would actually be protected under the Charter (religious freedom). They’d also be protected under the Criminal Code, [section 319(2) and (3)](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41491.html#section-319):
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > (2)Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty…  
> > . . .  
> > (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)…  
> > . . .  
> > (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.
> 
> Express a religious opinion, and you’re protected from prosecution for hate speech. Even if it promotes hate.

You can say whatever your religion has you believe. But, the courts, and me, think it’s reasonable to tell someone whose religion includes making threats of ethnic cleansing that they can’t make those threats. People can’t live together if they’re threatening each other with death. They can live side by side, thinking each other are sinners or idiots, and even telling each other they think so, but when one group allowed to promote the killing or destruction of another, it means the second group has to live in fear of death. Remember Jugoslavia?

Religious expression is protected in Canada. But we do restrict rights of people where they would threaten the existence of others. You can say homosexuals are sinners. You can say you hate homosexuals. You can say ‘God hates fags’, and they’re all going to burn in hell.

You _can’t_ say, or imply that ‘All the homosexuals should be killed’. You can’t encourage people to kill homosexuals, and you can’t publish statements that condone the elimination of _any_ group of people.

And even then, **cowgirl** ’s post suggests the bill was watered down to protect even those statemtens, if they’re religious.

So, what exatly illustrates that “religious expression is not protected”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2003, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/30 "2003-09-19T13:15:56Z")

</div>

Well, I still call red herring as The cases aren’t dead yet.

One is a Provincial court case. Once they go to the Supreme court of Canada the verdict may change so I’ll wait and see whether the man’s charter rights are indeed violated.

The other was from the Ontario Human Rights commision… not exactly a criminal court case. He was fined, he can appeal, he was not criminally charged.

I personally believe the Printer has the right to not print whatever he feels as he is a private business owner. I believe he is under no obligation to print material he does not wish to.

The Newspaper ad is pointy headed but once again I believe this falls under freedom of speech. Unfortunately what is he saying? Homosexuality is wrong, should be banned should be eliminated?  
Will the bible be banned? No, will priests teaching those specific parts of the bible dealing with homosexuality be rounded up?

Also no.

Will the average person who believes Homosexuality is a sin be arrested? Nope.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/31 "2003-09-19T14:43:51Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> ## \*Originally posted by DMC \* \*\*Perhaps you missed this in the OP, but the law **currently** states: quote:
> 
> ## (4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
> 
> All the bill is doing is appending sexual orientation to the other groups already included. \*\*

Yes, and my objection would be that the protection afforded to groups by this law is limited to those identifiable by color, race, religion, or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation if the bill becomes law.

Other groups, even if they were targetted for some reason, are not given the same protection. Somebody who systematically targetted abortion providers, or socialists, or SUV owners, for attack, would not be covered under the bill, whereas gay-bashers or anti-Semites would be.

If the reasoning is that threatening a large number of people is worse than threatening one or a few, well and good, but I would argue that it should _any_ large number of people, not just those with certain selected characteristics.

If I advocate emptying my shotgun into the local Gay Pride parade, that is a dreadful thing, but it isn’t morally any different than firebombing the Democratic Party headquarters.

If you see what I mean.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/32 "2003-09-19T17:06:02Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Shodan \*  
> \*\*Yes, and my objection would be that the protection afforded to groups by this law is limited to those identifiable by color, race, religion, or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation if the bill becomes law. \*\*

As I stated, I fully understand the position you’re taking, but shouldn’t you be fighting to include the groups you’d like to see included? Or, assuming you find hate crimes laws to be superfluous, wouldn’t you fight to have them removed completely? We’re not talking about creating new laws here, simply adding another protected class to an existing one. One that actually needs protection from where I stand. The folks who are fighting it the loudest (CCRL, etc., not you), aren’t hiding the fact very well that it’s not about a problem with hate crimes laws, it’s the fact that gays are being included.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Other groups, even if they were targetted for some reason, are not given the same protection. Somebody who systematically targetted abortion providers, or socialists, or SUV owners, for attack, would not be covered under the bill, whereas gay-bashers or anti-Semites would be.
> 
> If the reasoning is that threatening a large number of people is worse than threatening one or a few, well and good, but I would argue that it should _any_ large number of people, not just those with certain selected characteristics. \*\*

I have no problem with this at all. If there are groups advocating genocide of abortion providers (and there very well may be), for instance, I’d be happy to debate that they should also be included. Perhaps adding “position of employment” to the law.

> [@](#):
>
> **If I advocate emptying my shotgun into the local Gay Pride parade, that is a dreadful thing, but it isn’t morally any different than firebombing the Democratic Party headquarters.**

Not being gay, I can’t say firsthand what experiences they go through, so I have to rely on others to share that with me. That being said, I’ve never really felt threatened based on my political affiliation, but if it became an issue for anyone of any party, then I’d have no problem having it added to the protected classes.

> [@](#):
>
> **If you see what I mean.**

I certainly do. It’s not your position I have a problem with, as I believe you truly want either no hate crime laws or you want them broadened to include all potential groups. Many of the groups are using similar arguments, even when it’s quite obvious that the **real** issue they have is that gays are being protected. Thus the red herring comments.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/33 "2003-09-19T21:07:28Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by wolfstu \*  
> As I said in the post right above yours, **NaSultainne** ’s examples are flawed. The second one has _nothing to do with the law we’re discussing_ (and if you think it interferes with religious expression, you’re not going to change that by opposing this law).

Whether it is a valid counterexample depends on whether the man was religously motivated. And this issue is not whether it can be changed by opposing this law, but whether religious freedom will trump this law.

> [@](#):
>
> And his description is of something that could very easily have been perceived as a _direct threat against homosexuals_. Imagine if somebody published a newspaper add with a “No Muslims” or “No Black People” sign, similar to the symbol described. Is that not over the line?

You seem to have missed part of his description. “it included **Bible verses** with an ‘=’ sign and two men holding hands inside the circle with a slash through it,” IOW, the message is not “no homosexuals”, but “christian means not homosexual”. Furthermore, the stardard of “could be perceived as a threat” strikes me as overly broad. Saying “people should practice homosexuality” is advocating genocide is absurd. Is the Bad Religion logo advocating genocide of Chrstians? Is the no smoking sign advocating the genocide of smokers? Is the no equestrians sign advocating the genocide of equestrians.

> [@](#):
>
> Express a religious opinion, and you’re protected from prosecution for hate speech. Even if it promotes hate.

But he did express a religious opinion, and he was not protected.

> [@](#):
>
> You can say whatever your religion has you believe. But, the courts, and me, think it’s reasonable to tell someone whose religion includes making threats of ethnic cleansing that they can’t make those threats. People can’t live together if they’re threatening each other with death.

A circle with a line through it is not threatening death. And homosexuality isn’t an ethnicity, BTW.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/34 "2003-09-22T17:00:31Z")

</div>

Well, **The Ryan** , we’re at the point where we need to know the details of what happened. What did the court have to say? Did this actually happen? If so, what did the court give as reasoning? I’m just conjecturing the ‘perceived as a threat’ line. What we need is a cite. A good one. The text of the decision would be good.

As for the message of that ad, I think it’s possible to read it as “The bible says: No gays allowed”.

And anyway, the 'no smoking sign shows a picture of a lit cigarette, to mean “None of these are allowed.” I haven’t seen the others you mentioned. The picture in the ad is described as showing two men holding hands. This could be taken to mean “No holding hands allowed” or “No hand-holders allowed”

If it means the latter, and a reader could be reasonably expected, I think, to believe that it does, then it’s the same as putting a rainbow, or the word “Fags” in the circle. With this meaning, the ad reads the same way as a no-parking sign. You know, the knd that say “Violators will be prosecuted” or “Towing at owner’s expense”. The court may have decided that homosexuals could reasonably feel threatened by it. The problem may be one of these ‘Impact, not intent’ things. If the ad had been text that included a bunch of bible verses, and the phrase “These clearly demonstrate that God finds homosexuality sinful”, there’s no question that it’s just a religious opinion. But in this case, the message of the ad seems very unclear.

But I haven’t read the decision. Have you? I think we need to.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/35 "2003-09-22T17:40:04Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DMC \*  
> \*\*As I stated, I fully understand the position you’re taking, but shouldn’t you be fighting to include the groups you’d like to see included? Or, assuming you find hate crimes laws to be superfluous, wouldn’t you fight to have them removed completely? We’re not talking about creating new laws here, simply adding another protected class to an existing one.  
> \*\*

I suspect this is the issue.

By itemizing a list of groups subject to special protection, rather than implementing a blanket protection of all citizens against genocide, the government is making distinctions amongst groups. Gays, in this example, are being offered a special protection that is not afforded to (for instance) abortion providers. This is (in my opinion) part of what people are talking about when they complain that gays want special privileges.

If this law passes, I would not be allowed to advocate that all gays should be killed. I would, however, be allowed (in theory) to advocate that left-handedness is a sign of devil worship, and that all left-handers should be killed.

So either advocacy of genocide against left-handers is already a part of Canadian law, in which case the law against advocating gay genocide is superfluous, or gays are going to be given special protection that the rest of Canadians don’t get.

Which strikes me as government singling out one group for special treatment. Which could be avoided by doing what I suggest, which is to offer the same level of protection to everyone that they do to gays, under the proposed ordinance.

Although you are correct that it is hypocritical to support this kind of group protection, providing that I belong to one of the groups. But this applies as much to gays who purport to be in favor of equal rights as it does to Catholics. IMO.

So you can either continue to add protected groups to the list, and thus implement (to some extent) a form of special protection for favored groups, or extend the same protection to all.

If you want to widen the definition of “protected group” to cover everyone in the society, why not just do it in one go? So gays (and Catholics) and others who are in favor of “equal rights for all” can bring the right of protection to everyone in their society.

Or else discover that it is there already, and save everyone some time and effort.

But it seems to me that my solution of equal protection for everyone, not just an enumerated list of groups, avoids the vexed question of government either endorsing or condemning the moral questions of homosexuality. Just pass a law (if you must) that no one can advocate genocide of anyone else.

As in "we don’t know if homosexuality is wrong, or not, and we don’t care. We do know that genocide is wrong, and you can’t advocate it. The rest we leave it to you to make up your own mind. "

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/36 "2003-09-22T18:55:21Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by wolfstu \*  
> \*\*Well, **The Ryan** , we’re at the point where we need to know the details of what happened.

No, the details are not relevant to the point that I am making, and if you think they are, that suggests that you did not pay attention to the point that I am making.

> [@](#):
>
> If it means the latter, and a reader could be reasonably expected, I think, to believe that it does, then it’s the same as putting a rainbow, or the word “Fags” in the circle.

No, because the ad expressed disapproval of conduct; the examples you presented would suggest disapproval of orientation.

> [@](#):
>
> If the ad had been text that included a bunch of bible verses, and the phrase “These clearly demonstrate that God finds homosexuality sinful”, there’s no question that it’s just a religious opinion. But in this case, the message of the ad seems very unclear.

While the exact message was unclear, the intent to express a religious opinion is quite clear.

Shodan, I believe that you are mistaken about these laws. They do not not single out groups for special protection, they single out a categories.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/37 "2003-09-22T20:14:08Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*  
> No, the details are not relevant to the point that I am making, and if you think they are, that suggests that you did not pay attention to the point that I am making.

Perhaps that’s the case. Let me get it straight: Your point is that someone expressed a religious opinion, and suffered for it. Yes? Or have I missed the mark?

> [@](#):
>
> No, because the ad expressed disapproval of conduct; the examples you presented would suggest disapproval of orientation.

Like I said, I’m not sure _what_ that ad was trying to express. Some unspecified bible verses, and men holding hands? Is it saying  
-‘The bible recommends men not hold hands’  
-‘The bible says Gay is Bad’  
-‘The bible calls us to put a stop to holding hands’  
-‘The bible says to eliminate men who hold hands’  
or something else?

Depending on which verses, and what they said, it’s conceivable that the court saw potential for readers to take it to mean the last one. It’s also possible that the court felt it was the intent of the advertiser to convey or imply the last one. Depending on the specifics, the court may well have felt that the ad was meant to call for an unspecified end to homosexuality.

The would-be advertiser was fined under some law, and reference was made to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. Let’s have a look: [pdf link](http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/S24-1.pdf)

> [@](#):
>
> Prohibitions against publications  
> 14(1) No person shall publish or display, or cause or permit to be published or displayed, on any lands or premises or in a newspaper, through a television or radio broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any printed matter or publication or by means of any other medium that the person owns, controls, distributes or sells, any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, article, statement or other representation:  
> . . .  
> (b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.

Where “prohibited ground” means:

> [@](#):
>
> (i) religion;  
> (ii) creed;  
> (iii) marital status;  
> (iv) family status;  
> (v) sex;  
> (vi) sexual orientation;  
> (vii) disability;  
> (viii) age;  
> (ix) colour;  
> (x) ancestry;  
> (xi) nationality;  
> (xii) place of origin;  
> (xiii) race or perceived race; and  
> (xiv) receipt of public assistance;

Now, if the whole point of this case was a complaint under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, then, first of all, it has no bearing on criminal cases. As well, we can see pretty well how it would have been justified under the code. You can claim that the code is a crock, but it doens’t affect criminal offences.  
How would it have been justified under the code? Easy. Judge reads the ad as potentially calling for an attitide of ‘No Homos Allowed’. Judge says "Hmm, section 14(1)(b)… ". Judge decides that the an implied threat to homosexuals is enough to warrant a restriction, despite section 14(2):

> [@](#):
>
> Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the right to freedom of expression under the law upon any subject.

Note, again, that while you may disagree with the court’s interpretation of the ad, or of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, or with the Code itself, this is a matter which only applies in the province of Saskatchewan, and which does not affect _Criminal_ matters, whcih are administered federally.

The Saskatchewan court found, I’m guessing, that … wait a minute. Why guess. Let’s check out what actually happened, huh? I’ll find a cite of my own, since no one else seems to think it’s relevant. Here’s one: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=31080](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080).

So, the ad was placed, and cited passages instructing homosexuals be put to death. When interviewed, the man clained he didn’t actually support putting gays to death. Nontheless, he listed an ad with the intent of having people look up verses that say so. Well, _now_ I understand. I still lack the text of the ruling, but there we are. The court figured he was advertising a belief that homosexuals should be put to death. And even then, other ads that included the full text of the biblical verses, but _didn’t_ show a picutre of hoosexuals under the “universal nullification symbol” were allowed:

> [@](#):
>
> Owens, in fact, published an ad in 2001, without complaint, that quoted the full text of the passages he cited in the offending 1997 ad

Meaning: Religious freedom of expression, even if you quote texts that say to kill people, is fine. But this particular ad was disallowed, because the jusxtaposition of the ‘put them to death’ passages with the ‘nullification’ symbol was over the line.

> [@](#):
>
> While the exact message was unclear, the intent to express a religious opinion is quite clear.

Exactly. A religious opinion that said certain people should be put to death. And a diagram of gays and ‘nullification’. The combination of these is what put it over the line, for the court.

So, to sum up:

1. Man places an ad containing references to a book.
2. References instruct readers to put gays to death.
3. Above messages reinforced by a graphic that could be taken to mean ‘Put a Stop to Homosexuals’ - Especially in light of the text they’d just been told to read.
4. Court says: "Hmm, this man is disseminating text that calls for the killing of a protected group, as well as a symbol that could mean ‘Eliminate such people’.
5. Court fines man.

Disagree?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/38 "2003-09-22T21:17:43Z")

</div>

Yes, Shodan, but the law _already_ explicitly protects racial and religious groups. If you advocate scrapping the existing law. fine. But a lot of people oppose adding gays to the protected list while favoring those already on it. Is this acceptible?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/39 "2003-09-23T00:34:59Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by sqweels \*  
> \*\*Yes, Shodan, but the law _already_ explicitly protects racial and religious groups. If you advocate scrapping the existing law. fine. But a lot of people oppose adding gays to the protected list while favoring those already on it. Is this acceptible? \*\*

Not to me, although I am not a Canadian.

What I am objecting to is dividing up the population into protected and unprotected groups. Protection should apply equally and to everybody.

Otherwise the government is singling out certain groups above others, which IMO is wrong.

You will not have added enough groups to the protected list until you have included everybody. In which case it makes no sense to divide them up into groups.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*  
> **Shodan, I believe that you are mistaken about these laws. They do not not single out groups for special protection, they single out a categories.**

And the difference between groups and categories would be…?

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266/40 "2003-09-23T04:14:01Z")

</div>

For those who have asked for a link to the decision of the Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench, it’s available on the web-page of the Law Society of Saskatchewan. Here’s a link: [Owens v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission)](http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawsociety.sk.ca%2Fnewlook%2FLibrary%2Ffulltextnew.htm&TN=fulltext&SN=AUTO12660&SE=1001&RN=0&MR=20&RF=fullNew3P&DF=fullLongNew2P&RL=0&DL=0&NP=3&ID=&MF=WPENGMSG.INI&MQ=&TI=0). Since that case is still before the courts, I don’t want to comment further on it, other than to point out that it’s an error to say that the individual was fined. Actions under the Human Rights Code are civil in nature, not penal. They’re similar to actions for damages for libel. The respondent in this case was required to pay compensation to the complainants for the injury to their dignity caused by the advert.

I would like to comment on a few other points. First, there are two separate Criminal Code offences that would be affected by the amendment. Having read the various posts, I think that point is not fully appreciated, and may be confusing the debate a bit.

The first offence is s. [318](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41491.html), which creates the offence of advocating genocide against an identifiable group. The types of identifiable groups are set out in section 318(4), and mean “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.” The amendment would add “sexual orientation” to the list in s. 318(4).

The second offence is s. 319, which creates the offence of public incitement of hatred against an identifiable group. Section 319(7) states that “identifiable group” in s. 319 has the same meaning that it does in s. 318(4), so by amending 318(4), the proposal would also amend s. 319, making it an offence to publicly incite hatred against a group based on the group’s sexual orientation.

Next, it’s been suggested that the amendment gives protection only to gays, not to others, and therefore the government is favouring gays. Well, that’s not true. The amendment adds “sexual orientation” to the protected lists under the two offences. “Sexual orientation” does not just mean gays; last time I checked, everyone has a sexual orientation, just like everyone has a colour, a race, a religion (or lack thereof) or ethnic origin. So anyone can potentially be the target of genocide, or the target of public incitement of hatred, and the offence provides protection to all of us. If the amendment goes through, a gay person who publicly advocated “straight-bashing” could potentially be convicted under the provision.

The list of characteristics that can qualify as an identifiable group is presumably based on the past pattern of abuses: that threats of genocide or incitement of hatred are normally based on the listed characteristics, and therefore the government should provide protection against those actions. In my opinion, it’s actually a conservative approach: the government is targetting the offence against a known problem (based on past experience), and is not creating a broader offence that may apply in other, unforeseen situations. So to respond to one of the examples, if mass political assasinations become a problem in Canada in the future, perhaps Parliament will add “political affiliation” to the list of identifiable groups. But that’s not been a problem to date, so a conservative approach says you don’t pass an offence that deal with something that isn’t an issue.

With regard to the argument that the criminal law of Canada already has an offence of threatening to kill a group, so s. 318 (advocating genocide) is unnecessary - it ain’t so. [Section 264.1 of the Code](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41320.html) makes it an offence to utter a threat to “cause death or bodily harm to any person”, but that is directed at individual persons, not at a group at large, which is the nature of the genocide offence. Plus, the uttering threats offence requires an actual threat against an individual. The genocide offence is based on advocating mass killing, without the speaker saying that he/she will personally take part. So there are significant differences between the two offences, and the genocide offence plays a role that the uttering threats offence cannot. Similarly, there is no pre-existing offence similar to that of inciting hatred.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadas-bill-c-250-hate-propaganda-and-homosexuals/202266.md?page=3)