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

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Northern Piper -
**“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.
**

Yes, but it would still depend on membership in a selected group (in the last case, straights) and is therefore offering a protection to some groups that it is not to others.

If, as you say, the prohibition already covers everybody (since everybody has a race and race is covered) then the law is unnecessary. Or else the law only applies insofar as a victim is a member of certain groups (and not others) and therefore is, in my view, discriminatory.

Thus “I think all those gays should be shot” is presumably illegal. “I think all those abortion providers/SUV owners/Republicans/ugly people should be shot” is presumably legal, and therefore the state is offering different levels of protection to members of different groups.

Originally posted by Northern Piper -
**
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. **

It seems to me that if threats of genocide provide a danger to society in general, then everyone in the society should be protected from those threats.

It is sort of like AIDS. When the disease first became widely known, it was perceived as afflicting almost entirely gay men and IV drug abusers. But government acted as if it were a threat to everyone. Imagine the criticisms of a government who said, “Straights don’t need to worry about AIDS, as it does not pose a threat to their group.”

Regards,
Shodan

[The_Ryan]

Shodan

And the difference between groups and categories would be…?

A group is a set of people, which includes some and excludes others. A category is a set of groups, presumably one in which each person belongs to one and only one member.

If, as you say, the prohibition already covers everybody (since everybody has a race and race is covered) then the law is unnecessary.

Merely because one is a member of a protected group does not mean one is protected. If I advocate killing gays, then I cannot be prosecuted on the theory that some gays are black, and blacks are protected.

Northern Piper

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.

No, in libel cases the plaintiff must show damages. This was meant to punish people with “unacceptable” opinions, not to address real economic loss, so it is accurate to call it a fine, regardless of what the government calls it. The government fined him money, and then handed the money over to someone else. Just because the government doesn’t keep the money, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a fine.

The respondent in this case was required to pay compensation to the complainants for the injury to their dignity caused by the advert.

“Injury to dignity”? That’s Newspeak for “I’m going to sue you for not agreeing with me”.

[NaSultainne]

*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).

The two examples I posted were entirely consistent with the reasoning used in this law. That being, any Christian (as in the noted examples) who publicly states anti-homosexual verses is now subject to charges of inciting hatred. This was before a human rights board, rather than criminal court, but the position remains the same, and the justification will follow the pattern now set.

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.

For cites: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/bible-ruled-hate-speech.htm and http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080.

And the sheer fact that you straight-facedly can “easily perceive” these statements as “direct threats against homosexuals” indicates the mindset in full motion.

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?

Unfortunately, you’re making an inapt comparison. Segregation, as policy in the memory of many of us in the U.S., is vastly different than biblical scriptures quoted in public. Black people were publicly mistreated, as a distinct group, in significant and overwhelming patterns over significant periods of time. The same cannot be said of gays; there is no corresponding pattern of Christians in this past century in lynching mobs against gays. Only one willfully blind would read such an ad to be urging death upon gays.

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”;

Express a religious opinion, and you’re protected from prosecution for hate speech. Even if it promotes hate.

Wrong. Your noted religious restriction is for subsection 319(2). What about 319(1):

*Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of:

(a) an idictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.*

And what, again, did the Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan rule?

“In my view the Board was correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule.”

Thus, you have the human rights board, the federal court, and now criminal law all in line that religious speech is clearly not automatically immune from prosecution. All that is needed is a court, somewhere in fair Canada, to read “hatred” into disapproval and voila.

It is not so far-fetched as some might claim.