# Factual Discussion about Canada’s Hate Speech Laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 8, 2019, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-discussion-about-canada-s-hate-speech-laws/843166 "2019-11-08T04:57:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-discussion-about-canada-s-hate-speech-laws/843166/81 "2019-11-14T22:09:03Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Says the guy discussing discrimination in a hate speech thread. You’d be better served going and opening a Jordan Peterson specific one. Yeah, who the hell is Jordan Peterson? Is he the guy from out on the coast who murdered his wife, and took her body out in hiw boat and threw it in the ocean? While he probably said some hateful things while killing her, it was the murder itself that he was tried & convicted for. ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-discussion-about-canada-s-hate-speech-laws/843166/82 "2019-11-14T22:45:33Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I didn’t say Peterson’s claims were wholly fictional, I said yours were. What you said was: > Except, of course, that Peterson never faced such a fine, because he was never part of an OHRC case. That isn’t a thing that happened. > > As to the letter he received from his employer, that’s his employer telling him to follow their rules, which are in part that he must follow the Ontario Human Rights Code - something the faculty association he was a dues-paying member of agreed to do. It doesn’t mention the Commission, nor does it says there is a case pending, or threaten him with a fine. And you’re still completely wrong. Someone who has committed a potentially illegal act does not face the possibility of penalty only when legal proceedings are initiated but from the moment they commit the act in question. Just because the intervening act of a complaint being filed would ultimately be a necessary further step it doesn’t change the fact that the filing of such a complaint and it being upheld remains a potential outcome until the claim is legally barred. Let’s try a useful hypothetical to illustrate: The state of Alassippi somehow passes a blatantly racist law making it illegal to be “black” and any such person within its borders faces arrest and imprisonment. Do you believe then that those so targeted only face the potential for punishment once they are arrested?Charged? At trial? When exactly in the process does punishment become a **possibility**? Furthermore, do they thus have no cause to protest or complain prior to that happening? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-discussion-about-canada-s-hate-speech-laws/843166/83 "2019-11-15T14:00:57Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > You failing to recognize any connection between discrimination, harassment, and hate speech, even if only in this specific context, doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Also, my comments were after someone had already raised the Peterson issue and the OP and others had likewise responded. So how exactly does this relate or is analogus to pointing out someone’s denial of apparently factual occurrences? I have not. I am however recognizing that this General Question thread is about a **specific topic and a specific set of laws**. There is a difference in law between discrimination and hate speech. Hence my suggestion that you opine in GD about how discrimination laws are hate speech and how hard done by Peterson is. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-discussion-about-canada-s-hate-speech-laws/843166/84 "2019-11-15T19:22:01Z")
I have no idea what the Peterson case is all about, but… If I choose to be called Mister Smith and someone calls me Mrs. Smith (or vice versa) the first time could be an honest mistake. the second time, forgetfulness I hope. The third time and beyond that, after being corrected, the guy is just being deliberately obtuse and offensive. A public servant being obtuse and offensive - deliberately - is due for some correction. Of course, if the person insists on being addressed in non-existent non-English non-words, that simply makes no sense. (or non-sense) ---
**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:** [November 18, 2019, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-discussion-about-canada-s-hate-speech-laws/843166/85 "2019-11-18T13:02:43Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > You failing to recognize any connection between discrimination, harassment, and hate speech, even if only in this specific context, doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Also, my comments were after someone had already raised the Peterson issue and the OP and others had likewise responded. So how exactly does this relate or is analogus to pointing out someone’s denial of apparently factual occurrences? I’m afraid we may have reached an impasse on this particular point. Under Canadian law, the concept of hate speech is restricted to the three offences in the _Criminal Code_, and the hate publication provisions found in three of the human rights codes. Discrimination in the provision of services can be based on language used, but that is not considered a type of hate speech, and the analysis used in cases like _Keegstra_ has no application to the discrimination cases. The reason I responded to the Peterson discussion was an attempt to make this point. \*\*Dirk Hardly \*\* apparently disagrees with the approach taken to hate speech in Canadian law and wants to argue for a broader definition of hate speech. That’s his prerogative, but I don’t see much value in trying to conduct that debate in a GQ thread. [Sorry for the delay in responding; some IRL issues the past week, including being sick.] ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2019, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-discussion-about-canada-s-hate-speech-laws/843166/86 "2019-11-18T14:26:28Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > And you’re still completely wrong. Someone who has committed a potentially illegal act… The Ontario Human Rights Commission does not hear criminal cases and does not deal in matters of “Hate speech.” The idea Peterson “faced” the possibility of penalty because someone imagined there existed a rule against “using the wrong pronouns” even though there isn’t actually such a rule is taking the meaning of “faced the possibility of penalty” to Trumpist lengths of absurdity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-discussion-about-canada-s-hate-speech-laws/843166.md?page=4)