Canadian Hate Laws

[Ephemera]

Mnemosyne, LaurAnge, brianjedi, and I were having a debate in the #straightdope channel on IRC on the merits of Canadian legislature vs. American when the the conversation eventually turned to the laws in Canada about hate speech, hate literature, and hate crimes. As to be expected, the Americans were against the idea of there being laws against such things based on the freedom of speech and the Candians were for it because, well, it’s their law and it’s worked well for them, but at the end, we all realized that none of us really knew the specifics of the law and how it relates to fines, fees, jail time, et al.

So, can anyone tell what the specifics are?

[Captain_Amazing]

This link might help.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

[brianjedi]

Since he forgot it, I’ll say it:

#straightdope is unaffiliated with the Chicago Reader, etc. and all that jazz.

[mnemosyne]

And naturally, as Aes was posting this GQ, I found the relevent sections of the Canadian Criminal Code:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/42050.html

For the sake of any discussion that might happen, please refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when discussing impacts on rights, NOT to the US constitution!

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

I think this will now be better off in GD, since we have the specifics, and this could spawn an interesting discussion.

Now I have to go actually read the whole thing!

[Ephemera]

I agree with **mnemosyne ** after having read both her and **Captain Amazing **'s links that this should be moved to GD.

I would like to see if anyone would be able to sway my opinion on the laws. I personally believe that, of the three relevant sections, only the incitement of a riot should be illegal wheras advocating genocide (unless leading to a riot)and the dissemination of hate literature, no matter how sickening, should be legal.

Of course, I am an American and I know my views on this are skewed by that fact but would like to see opposing viewpoints to see if I am missing something key.

[xash]

Moved to GD at the request of the OP.

Aesiron, since reporting your own post is not possible with the current version of the software, feel free to report a post above or below yours. That way we automatically get a link to the thread.

-xash
General Questions Moderator

[Sam_Stone]

Canadian hate speech laws are a terrible idea, and in practice what they turn into is a tool that people use to squelch debate, humor, or politically incorrect speech. For instance, when Conan brought Triumph to Canada, our assistant minister of multiculturalism tried to claim that his french jokes were hate speech. In Canada, when you invoke the words ‘hate speech’ it is almost always done with the intent to intimidate, because it carries the unspoken but not so hidden threat of actual government retaliation.

You know what else is wrong with Canada? We have an ‘assistant minister of multiculturalism’.

[John_Mace]

@Sam Stone

You know what else is wrong with Canada? We have an ‘assistant minister of multiculturalism’.

I guess it could be worse-- you could lose the “assistant” part…

[Sam_Stone]

We have one of those too. The assistant Minister of Multiculturalism is the assistant to the Minister of Multiculturalism. Actually, it might be the Junior Minister of Multiculturalism.

And let me tell you, when a Minister of Multiculturalism starts to go off about hate speech, it all seems positively Orwellian.

[mnemosyne]

Ok, I’ve been thinking about this, and I just don’t see these laws as being that bad.

I see where there is a very fine line between, for example, joking and hate speech but the fact is, I don’t support hate speech and I’d want it to be stopped, especially if it were directed at me. So I agree with the spirit of the law. I’m not sure about the actual law itself, though, since I’m not sure about how it has been applied, though the defences section seems to allow a fair amount of wriggle room.

One thing to remember, though, is that - as I understand it - each right afforded to us from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is equal to any other right. In the US, Freedom of Speech seems to trump other rights, but here, my right not to be discriminated against is equal to your right to free speech. But hate speech towards me is discrimination, and so it violates my rights. Therefore it must be stopped. You cannot use of “freedom of speech” as an excuse to violate my right to be free from discrimination. The only recourse is the curb what you can and cannot say.

The law does allow for speech which might be construed as hate speech to be used legally in certain contexts. So discussion or certain types of statements are allowed. You can have and even share these opinions - you just have to be civil about it (and I know that this is not a good argument on my part, but I don’t tend to come to GD and I"m not good at this!)

This makes sense to me. The hate speech laws are basically an extension of threats to individuals, aren’t they? Except that they become threats to GROUPS, and that shouldn’t be allowed either.

If two things are considered equal, but one harms the second, then they are no longer equal and actions must be taken to correct that.

I know this isn’t a good post. I would like to discuss this more, though, so feel free to tear it apart so I can respond!

[Odesio]

@mnemosyne

Ok, I’ve been thinking about this, and I just don’t see these laws as being that bad.

I see where there is a very fine line between, for example, joking and hate speech but the fact is, I don’t support hate speech and I’d want it to be stopped, especially if it were directed at me.

A lot of other people would like to silence speech they diagree with.

But hate speech towards me is discrimination, and so it violates my rights. Therefore it must be stopped. You cannot use of “freedom of speech” as an excuse to violate my right to be free from discrimination. The only recourse is the curb what you can and cannot say.

Doesn’t the right to be free from discrimination only apply to things like employment, housing, loans, services at public places, etc? Shouldn’t individuals have the right to discriminate by whatever standards they choose in their private lives?

Marc

[RickJay]

@Sam Stone

Canadian hate speech laws are a terrible idea, and in practice what they turn into is a tool that people use to squelch debate, humor, or politically incorrect speech.

Can you cite any examples of hate crime laws being used to prosecute people telling jokes or merely engaging in “politically incorrect speech?”

Specific examples, please.

[Sam_Stone]

Rickjay: Did you read what I said? I said that hate speech laws are used to threaten people. Didn’t the spectre of hate speech laws just get invoked with regard to Don Cherry? And Triumph the Insult Comic Dog?

And here’s another example of how this law is used to intimidate people: Sunera Thobani was accused of ‘hate crimes’ after someone heard one of her rants against the United States, and reported her to the RCMP. The RCMP forwarded the complaint to the ‘hate crimes unit’ of the Ottawa-Carleton police department.

But if you want cites of actual convictions… Here’s a man who was convicted of hate speech against Muslims:

Harding was convicted in 1998 on federal hate-crimes charges stemming from a June 1997 incident in which he distributed pamphlets outside a public high school, Weston Collegiate Institute in Toronto. Harding – who said that until that point he spent most of his time evangelizing Muslims – was protesting the school’s policy of setting aside a room for Muslim students to pray during school hours.

In one of his pamphlets, Harding listed atrocities committed by Muslims in foreign lands to back his assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims.

The pamphlet said: “The Muslims who commit these crimes are no different than the Muslim believers living here in Toronto. Their beliefs are based on the Quran. They sound peaceful, but underneath their false sheep’s clothing are raging wolves seeking whom they may devour. And Toronto is definitely on their hit list.”

“The point I was trying to make is you shouldn’t have a violent religion like Islam allowed in a school when Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism is not allowed,” he told WND.

Harding, an evangelical Protestant, insists he has love rather than hatred toward Muslims and wants to see them go to heaven.

I haven’t seen his pamphlet, and I certainly don’t condone tarring all Muslims, but there is no way in hell anyone should be convicted of a crime for distributing material like this. In the U.S., neo-nazis have a constitutional right to publish what they want and assemble in public. In Canada, you can be thrown in jail if your pamphlet is ‘hateful’.

The man received two years probation and 340 hours of community service at the Islamic society of North America.

Do you support this?

And of course there was Jim Keegstra, an obnoxious bigot who should have been fired from the school he was teaching in for not teaching the curriculum, but he was convicted under hate crimes legislation…

Then there was Hugh Owens, who was convicted of a ‘crime’ for publishing an anti-gay advertisement in the Saskatchewan Star Phoenix. His ad was a traffic-sign like thing with two figures of the same sex holding hands, with a circle and line through it. Underneath were bible passages that supposedly condemn homosexuality.

It seems to me that not only was his right to free speech infringed by the courts, but so was his religious freedom, for all he published were bible verses.

[RickJay]

@Sam Stone

Rickjay: Did you read what I said? I said that hate speech laws are used to threaten people. Didn’t the spectre of hate speech laws just get invoked with regard to Don Cherry? And Triumph the Insult Comic Dog?

Good Christ, man. In what way was Conan O’Brien or Triumph the slightest bit inconvenienced by some idiot bureaucrat spouting off that they shouldn’t be allowed to say certain things?

Were they charged?
Were they harassed by the RCMP?
Did shadowy agents of the government stare in O’Brien’s hotel window at night?

I could sit here and say people should be charged with murder, as detailed in the Criminal Code, every time they kill an insect. Wouldn’t make it happen.

I mean, at least tone your comments down to the level of “actual reality.” I’m not fussy about hate crimes law either but it’s simply not true to characterize them as being freely used to intimidate people when they make “politically incorrect” comments; that’s simply a lie.

I haven’t seen his pamphlet, and I certainly don’t condone tarring all Muslims, but there is no way in hell anyone should be convicted of a crime for distributing material like this.

If you haven’t seen it, how do you know whether or not it should have been a criminal matter? Surely SOME things require legal intervention. Inciting people to violence, for instance? Maybe the pamphlets contained that. Frankly, without a full account of the case or knowing precisely what went on, I don’t know how you could come to such a firm conclusion.

Incidentally, your example for Saskatchewan was not even related to federal hate crimes law.

Do you support this?

In many cases, no. But don’t feed us a line of bullshit characterizing this as some routine “practice” used to “squelch debate.” That’s absurd; you know as well as I do hate crimes laws are used in quite exceptional circumstances.

[Northern_Piper]

Sam, did you actually read the Owens case you linked to?

A couple of points - first, it wasn’t a criminal prosecution, but a civil matter. Mr. Owens was not found guilty, but civily liable for exposing “the complainants to hatred, ridicule and an affront to their dignity because of their sexual orientation …” which is more akin to libel and slander laws than a criminal matter. Mr. Owens paid damages to the complainants as a result.

Second, did you see exactly what biblical verse he was referring to? It’s one of our old friends from Leviticus,20:13 “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Further, Mr. Owens appears to take this literally, according to the judge’s summary of his testimony:

The appellant in his testing believes that homosexuals, by being who they are, are committing a sin for which they should be put to death. Furthermore, the passages from the Bible, which are cited in the bumper sticker and in the advertisement, constitute the appellant’s authority for this belief.

Yup, any gay or lesbian person, just because of who they are, should be put to death, according to this individual. That is way beyond the boundaries of any civil discourse. It’s always been the case that inciting attacks or murder of individuals is a crime, freedom of speech notwithstanding. Hate laws extend that principle to non-specific incitements against a group instead of against an individual. And, just because an individual’s belief that people should be killed is rooted in the Bible, or any other religious text, doesn’t give the individual a free pass.

[mnemosyne]

@Northern Piper

[ Hate laws extend that principle to non-specific incitements against a group instead of against an individual. And, just because an individual’s belief that people should be killed is rooted in the Bible, or any other religious text, doesn’t give the individual a free pass.

This is what I think, too. The laws (in theory at least) simply protect a group of people in much the same way as laws protect individuals from threatening behaviour.

Doesn’t the right to be free from discrimination only apply to things like employment, housing, loans, services at public places, etc? Shouldn’t individuals have the right to discriminate by whatever standards they choose in their private lives?

• From MGibson

The Defenses section of the law says:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(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.

Doesn’t that agree with what you said? I mean, the law allows people to discuss and debate issues which may be condisderd as “hateful”, particularly as part of a religious or faith-based argument. So the law isn’t there to suppress the language, or the ideas. You can say what you want in private (and even in most public circumstance), or as part of a reasonable discussion, but when your words take on a level of threat (such as the gays should be put to death example) then the laws are there to protect the groups which are being threatened. At least, that’s how I interpret that. Because someone that is part of a targetted group can’t stand up and say “He is threatening ME”, that doesn’t mean the threat hasn’t been made. So the hate-speech law acknowledges this, and states that the complaint is equally valid.

I am SO out of my league in Great Debates.

[Sam_Stone]

Let me be perfectly clear: I detest all of the people I mentioned in that thread. Keegstra, Owens, Thobati, all of them are obnoxious bigots. I have zero use for anything any of them have to say.

What I strenuously disagree with, however, is that the government has any role in determining what is ‘hateful’, and that it should have the right to squelch speech of this kind.

I’m surprised at some of you disagreeing with me. My position is the same one the ACLU has taken. And my larger point was that the mere existence of these laws can have a chilling effect on speech, even if charges and convictions are rare. Politicians and others can and have used the threat of hate speech prosecution to squelch opinion. In other words, in Canada when someone says, “That is hate speech!” it has an entirely more sinister and threatening overtone than if the same thing is said in the United States.

[mnemosyne]

But does the ACLU have anything to do with this? It is an American organization, and as such makes it’s decisions based on the US Constitution and other laws. I recognize the importance of the First Amendment in the states, but as I understand it, while we DO have freedom of speech in Canada, that freedom is conditional on the fact that what you say does not infringe on the rights of another person (such as saying something that discrimintates against them based on religion, for example). That freedom also doesn’t allow threatening acts or words, which is, I believe, what most “hate speech” is.

From the Charter:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
   a) freedom of conscience and religion;
   b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
   c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
   d) freedom of association.

and

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So therefore, if one of the freedoms in the first quote leads to the direct infringement of a freedom/right in the second one, shouldn’t the person or groups whose rights are being infringed upon have a legal recourse?

And since every individual is equal under the law, then I would interpret that to mean that the threat of “hate speech” can’t be used for intimidation purposes, as it becomes a threat in much the same way as the hate speech was used.

Also, since this is part of the criminal code, I presume any case would be tried by jury, and so it isn’t so much the government who decides what is “hateful” as it is the peers of the accused.

As I said earlier, I’m not sure that the law itself is well-written, and I can definitely see how it might be misinterpreted (such is in the Thobani case) but I can see the justification for it in terms of the rights of the targetted groups and people. Since the Thobani case would likely have been dismissed, is it a valid argument AGAINST having the law in place, since the law wouldn’t have applied to this case?

Does that make sense? Is there some fundamental misunderstanding of what my rights are that I’m just not seeing?

[Sam_Stone]

You’re right in that the ACLU is an American organization, but their opposition to hate speech laws is not just because the constitution defends free speech. Their opposition is from basic principles - and so is mine. The legality of the law is irrelevant to me, if I find the law itself immoral. I believe that free people should have the right to free speech.

[Malthus]

@Sam Stone

Let me be perfectly clear: I detest all of the people I mentioned in that thread. Keegstra, Owens, Thobati, all of them are obnoxious bigots. I have zero use for anything any of them have to say.

What I strenuously disagree with, however, is that the government has any role in determining what is ‘hateful’, and that it should have the right to squelch speech of this kind.

I’m surprised at some of you disagreeing with me. My position is the same one the ACLU has taken. And my larger point was that the mere existence of these laws can have a chilling effect on speech, even if charges and convictions are rare. Politicians and others can and have used the threat of hate speech prosecution to squelch opinion. In other words, in Canada when someone says, “That is hate speech!” it has an entirely more sinister and threatening overtone than if the same thing is said in the United States.

I kinda-sorta agree that total freedom of speech is a good thing, and that laws designed to narrow it are in general a bad thing (though ACLU has really nothing to do with it). The main reason is that I think such laws have the potential for being abused.

However, I don’t see that there has been any such abuse up here in Canada. I don’t agree that there is “hate speech laws discussion chill”. I live here, and have never noticed anything of the sort, or even heard of anyone complaining of anything of the sort.

Most complaints about speech and rights come in the form of complaints about administrative actions taken by (say) university administrators, which is as big a problem/issue in the US if not more so.

In summary, such laws may be a bad idea, because of some potential for abuse; such abuse has not, in fact, occured to date; until it does, there is really nothing of an issue. The law is simply used so rarely that nobody even thinks of it much.