There isn’t a list.
If a potential case comes up, police would likely consult with the Crown to see if the legal test has been met, based on the case law, particularly from the Supreme Court but also from lower courts. Again, the offences are like other criminal,offences in our system. The interpretation that the courts give in their reasons flesh out the general words of the statutory definition of the offences. The statutes and the precedents together give the guidance to the police, the Crowns, and the defence counsel.
Personally, I think that the SCC has set a very high standard that has to be met in their reasons in the major cases on the interpretation of the offences.
I’m afraid I can’t answer your question, DSeid. I’m just a lawyer, not a criminologist or sociologist.
Eh?
The list of protected characteristics is set out in s. 318(4) of the Criminal Code, which is the section defining the genocide promotion offence:
That list of identifiable groups also applies to the two offences in s. 319 (inciting hatred likely to cause breach of the peace, and willful promotion of hatred)
There are similar lists of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the provincial human rights codes which have prohibitions on hate publications.
I have a question.
If after 20 years of posting here you still don’t understand the basic rules of the General Questions forum, how much confidence should we have that you actually understand the nuances of Canada’s Hate Speech laws?
As stated in the OP, I ran it past the mods before starting this thread. They agreed that GQ was the best place for it.
If you think I’ve overstepped the boundaries of GQ, please feel free to draw it to the attention of the mods. .
You (the OP) have written here about protections against over-zealous or “rogue” Crown prosecutors charging folks willy-nilly with hate speech crimes.
Is there a protection against the reverse - where the relevant Crown prosecutor of the appropriate jurisdiction refuses to proceed against someone whose violation of the “willfully promoting hatred” statute seems blatant and obvious? Assume the violator has no special protected status such as being a politician (if I understand what you wrote correctly) but whose remarks are getting a following on social media. Further assume this is not one of the provinces that has civil penalties available. Are there steps that can be taken to out-flank this prosecutor? Who has the ability (or “standing” as we would put it in the US) to take those steps to pursue criminal charges?
I presume this is a question that would apply to any statutory offense, not limited to hate speech. So “Canadian Law 101” material.
Moderator Note
If after 17 years of posting here you don’t understand that you shouldn’t junior mod, you have no call to question another poster’s judgement. If you have a problem with a post, report it. As noted in the OP, this was cleared with the GQ mods beforehand.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Roderick, you’re right that this question applies generally to Canadian criminal law.
The basic principle is that both the police and the Crown have institutional independence in relation to laying charges and prosecuting them.
If a person thinks that a charge should be laid, they can report it to the police and make representations to the senior officers and Crowns if no action is taken, but ultimately the Crown prosecution office decides.
The courts will not review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, absent evidence of abuse of power.
ETA: I’m not sure what you meant about politicians having protected status? They don’t. They’re subject to the criminal law like anyone else.
Thank you anyway. If you think of any idea of a good resource to visualize trends over the past several decades please let me know.
Just thought of the Canadian Centre for Justice Stats. They may have something.
https://www.cacp.ca/canadian-centre-for-justice-statistics.html
Oops wrong link. That’s the chiefs of police.
Here’s the StatsCan link:
Unless I read wrong from what is written, it is my understanding that RickJay was referring to groups of people, not groups of classes. The difference being the criminal code specifying laws against the discrimination towards ‘blondes’ versus one against ‘hair colour.’
I had found that but couldn’t find the trending information over time that I am looking for on it. Thanks though. Appreciated.
I immediately thought of Canadian Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson and his insistence on NOT obeying a new law which commands the populace to address members of the Transgender Community in their preferred pronouns.
Peterson has stated he would accomodate a student who privately negotiated their preferred pronouns with him…he just feels it is “Unconstitutional” (whatever the Canadian equivalent) to be forced by law to alter speech.
That is Professor Peterson’s summary of the law in question. Others disagree with that interpretation.
The law added gender identity and gender expression to the protected grounds of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The purpose of the addition was to ensure that trans individuals cannot be denied services, accommodation, employment and so on because of their gender identity or expression. It does not say anything directly about forms of address.
Two other points: the Canadian Human Rights Act no longer has a hate speech provision in it, as mentioned earlier, so this amendment cannot be used to trigger a hate speech complaint. Second, Professor Peterson is employed by a university. Universities are not subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which only applies to businesses and institutions under federal jurisdiction. The federal amendments therefore do not apply to Professor Peterson in his job with the university.
For more information, see this wiki article on the amendments:
That is Professor Peterson’s summary of the law in question. Others disagree with that interpretation.
The law added gender identity and gender expression to the protected grounds of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The purpose of the addition was to ensure that trans individuals cannot be denied services, accommodation, employment and so on because of their gender identity or expression. It does not say anything directly about forms of address.
Two other points: the Canadian Human Rights Act no longer has a hate speech provision in it, as mentioned earlier, so this amendment cannot be used to trigger a hate speech complaint. Second, Professor Peterson is employed by a university. Universities are not subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which only applies to businesses and institutions under federal jurisdiction. The federal amendments therefore do not apply to Professor Peterson in his job with the university.
For more information, see this wiki article on the amendments:
Oops, double post. My phone’s connection to the SDMB hiccuped. Sorry.
That’s me misunderstanding md2000’s post about “overrides.” No need to address it further if it’s not relevant to my question.
For the rest, on a purely practical level, how hard is it in Canadian law to level a charge of abuse of power against a Crown prosecutor for failure to prosecute? How much evidence would one need to at least get court review of such a charge?
This question speaks to equal application of the law across jurisdictions, and possibly of equal application of the law’s protection to different groups – i.e. if a prosecutor decides to press one case but not another, where the hate speech targets were in different classes (racial vs. sexual orientation, for example). I hope that makes sense; if not, feel free to ignore this paragraph.
But the law says “colour” not “skin colour” or “hair colour”. and of course, hair colour is second only to skin colour as a very distinguishing feature of humans - it’s on passports and drivers licenses. (although hair colour changes as we age or visit the hairdresser).
I suppose an enterprising judge could interpret that law as covering blondes. Or red-heads, they’d be more feisty about discrimination. 
But then, it would have to be supported all the way up to the supreme court, and the Canadian court is fairly good for common sense and liberalism.