Straight Dope on Canada's C.250?

[Leaper]

I tried following another message board’s link to find out more about this bill (this one), but it wasn’t too enlightening. Basically, this other message board post characterizes this bill this way:

This bills expands the definition of ‘hate speech’ to include sexual orientation. This little gem would literally make it a crime to criticize the morality of homosexuality. Lest there be any confusion, this is not about inciting violence against gays. No, the simple act of saying ‘Homosexuality is wrong’ will be a CRIME.

It would give license to those with a bone to pick to do such wonderful things as

• Making the Bible/Koran/Torah ‘hate materials’.

• Target any sort of family and/or conservative websites (think : politically oriented ones) as hate sites, subject to shutdown.

• Prevent any sort of legitimate discussion of gay rights legislation because any opposition could be viewed as hate speech.

Can anyone give me the REAL facts (assuming this poster is incorrect), or point me to other threads I missed on this subject? This post was in response to someone’s claim that Canada has the most oppressive speech suppression laws in the Western world, and that (and this) sounded wrong to me somehow…

[Gorsnak]

The entirety of Bill C-250

2nd Session, 37th Parliament,
51 Elizabeth II, 2002

House of Commons of Canada

BILL C-250

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

Definition of ``identifiable group’’

(4) In this section, ``identifiable group’’ means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation .

link

And, Subsection 318 of the Criminal Code reads:

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of “genocide”

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of “identifiable group”

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

R.S., c. 11(1st Supp.), s. 1.

link

[laigle]

Seems like we discussed this bill a while ago and it only actually pertained to inciting violence. Not sure about that however.

Anyways, if you’re going to ban hate speech about other groups, it makes perfect sense to ban it for sexual orientation. But I think that no speech, regardless of how evil and stupid it is, should be banned.

[Gorsnak]

I should note that C-250 also has the effect of modifying Subsection 319 (which refers to 318.4). 319 can be found immediately below 318 in the link provided, and deals with inciting hatred. 319 is the more questionable of the two, imho, though it is riddled with caveats and exceptions.

[Gorsnak]

And, just to be thorough, here’s a link to a recent (and quite good, I thought) thread on this very subject.

link

[Leaper]

@Gorsnak

And, just to be thorough, here’s a link to a recent (and quite good, I thought) thread on this very subject.

link

Thanks! This does help!

Still, I’m not sure whether and how it answers some of my questions. From what I read in the thread, it’s possible that the law could have the effect that the quoted poster on another message board describes, and that it’s apparently a matter of debate whether identical laws HAVE been used that way already.

Is this correct?

[Gorsnak]

@Leaper

Thanks! This does help!

Still, I’m not sure whether and how it answers some of my questions. From what I read in the thread, it’s possible that the law could have the effect that the quoted poster on another message board describes, and that it’s apparently a matter of debate whether identical laws HAVE been used that way already.

Is this correct?

Is it possible that the law could have the effect that merely opining that homosexual activity is immoral would be a criminal act? That debating gay rights would become impossible because one side would automatically be guilty of hate speech?

No. Well, it is possible, but only in the sense that were crown attorneys and judges to ignore both the letter and the spirit of the statute, which clearly exempts religious and public policy discussions, they might convict someone. However, if state attorneys and judges in the US were to ignore the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, similar things might happen, so that particular possibility is moot.

I know that Sam expressed some concerns in the linked thread about quashing debate, but I think they were rather overstated.

[Captain_Amazing]

Check out 319 (3)

(3) 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;

© 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.

So, 3b or c would mean that saying something like “homosexuality is wrong” would be protected.