Bill C-250 passes Senate

[Black Dog]

Link.

Good news!!

This is the law that amends The Hate Propaganda section of the C.C, adding sexual orientation to the list of protected grounds. This section has been in place for decades and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable curb on freedom of speech

All that's left is for the G.G. to give Royal Assent.

[CanadaRocks]

Good. Laws that protect someone from descrimination sound good to me.

On the other hand? If you, or I, or any average Canadian would have been charged and or convicted for theft, why should someone in a position of power get special treatment? (sorry but that info was included on the link you gave) ^^

I did like very much that they are leaning towards treatment rather than punishment, but then, perhaps that attitude should be extended to all Canadians in the same situation?

"do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"

(said respectfully)

[maplesyrup]

Black Dog.....finally. Great news!

[Alliance Fanatic]

Its good news for those who wish to abuse the law. The problem is that the law will be abused by those certain left leaning hypocrites that will try to force people to believe homosexaulity is a healthy lifestyle. It will also be used by certain dimwits to destroy debate.

[BigGunner]

Its good news for those who wish to abuse the law. The problem is that the law will be abused by those certain left leaning hypocrites that will try to force people to believe homosexaulity is a healthy lifestyle. It will also be used by certain dimwits to destroy debate.

The Law will forbid people from promoting hate towards gays and lesbians, and advocating violence against them. That is what hate literature does.

Whether or not you agree that homosexuality is one thing, but you are not permitted to tell people that it is ok to beat up or kill someone because they are gay.

[August1991]

I'm afraid that Canada is falling victim to political correctness. If people can't say what they think, they will go underground to say it. The "truth" cannot be ordained, and we are foolish to believe that we can make it so.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

When does an opinion become a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime? Am I guilty if I say I intend to park my car illegally? A simple parking ticket requires a date, time, place and description of the physical infraction.

[BigGunner]

I'm afraid that Canada is falling victim to political correctness. If people can't say what they think, they will go underground to say it. The "truth" cannot be ordained, and we are foolish to believe that we can make it so.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

When does an opinion become a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime? Am I guilty if I say I intend to park my car illegally? A simple parking ticket requires a date, time, place and description of the physical infraction.

If you equate a traffic ticket to a hate crime, then you are clearly misguided.

You are free to argue your views on why you think gay lifestyles are not 'healthy'...from your point of view.

You are not free to proclaim that because you feel gay lifestyles are unhealthy, that gays must be killed or beaten up..or fired from their jobs...or have them lose their homes...etc

Hate litetature is not free speach.

[Hugo]

Firstly, it seems ridiculous that in an ostensibly free society we would make the expression of certain views punishable by imprisonment.

Secondly, it also seems ridiculous that in an ostensibly egalitarian society, we have decided that some highly subjective views are "wrong" and that people have no right to express "wrong" views, and that people so doing shall be punished.

To my mind, freedom of speech means exactly that, no matter how wrong or offensive that speech will be. Surely ideas should be allowed to stand or fall on their own merit, rather than being held up or struck down by government decree and the rule of law?

Read August's signature. For those needing translation, it's a famous quote by Voltaire that reads, "I may disagree with what you say but I shall defend your right to say it to the death."

Like political correctness, people will get sick of this in a few years and there will be a backlash. People are already annoyed that they have to walk on eggshells when discussing anything that might be construed as bigoted. Would you feel completely comfortable discussing, in your workplace or school, an issue such as the tendency of blacks to be less educated and earn less money? I wouldn't. I don't think people particularly like being muzzled and I think that Bill C-250 will end up damaging what it seeks to protect.

Furthermore, it should be noted that incitement to violence, civil unrest and breach of the peace has always been a crime, even before hate speech was coined. These laws don't change anything there, except to create a more uncomfortable atmosphere, a more limited field of public discourse, and to draw attention to and emphasise the differences they are ultimately seeking to dispel.

Can anyone cite an incident or policy to me where an emphasis on racial, gender or sexuality differences rather than an emphasis on egaliatarianism actually did any good, rather than made matters worse?

[playfullfellow]

The sad thing about this law is that technically, most religious books such as the bible or koran could be construed as hate literature. The laws are in place that forbid people from beating or killing people because of their race, religion or sexual preferences. Peoples sexual preferences should be left at home in the bedroom and not become part of our charter system.

[Black Dog]

f you, or I, or any average Canadian would have been charged and or convicted for theft, why should someone in a position of power get special treatment?

Where is that suggested in the article? Can you point it out, as I can't find what you're talking about.

When does an opinion become a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime? Am I guilty if I say I intend to park my car illegally? A simple parking ticket requires a date, time, place and description of the physical infraction

Firstly, it seems ridiculous that in an ostensibly free society we would make the expression of certain views punishable by imprisonment.

Secondly, it also seems ridiculous that in an ostensibly egalitarian society, we have decided that some highly subjective views are "wrong" and that people have no right to express "wrong" views, and that people so doing shall be punished.  

Even in our free society, we have determined there are certain, acceptable limits on free speech. Forbidding people from shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is an example where "free speech" is limited based on its negative effect on others (and I'm aware it's a faulty eample).

In Canada, the Supreme Court has upheld the hate speech law on two grounds:

• that it's a reasonable limit on free speech; and
  
• the limit is justified in a free and democractic society.
  

Much of the opposition to hate speech legislation in general and C-250 in particular, seems to stem from a profound misunderstanding of the terms and conditions of this law.

The Criminal Code makes what constitutes "hate speech" very clear. Hate speech is not simply expressing an opinion, but an incitement to do violence. It's the difference between "I don't like those n***ers." and "Let's kill all the n***ers." The Act in question defines hate speech in three ways:

• Advocating genocide (genocide being defined as: 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.)
  
• Public incitement of hatred (where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace)
  
• Wilful promotion of hatred (No one can be convicted under this subsection
  (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
  (b)if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  (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.
  

As you can see, there's some very specific criterea as to what constitutes hate speech.

The sad thing about this law is that technically, most religious books such as the bible or koran could be construed as hate literature.

Religious speech (as guaranteeeed by the Charter of Rights) is covered, so long as it does not promote violence. In other words, you can say that the Bible forbids homosexuality and you're still covered. However, if you use that Biblical reference to incite violence against homosexuals for that reason, you are guilty of hate speech.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Apparently in Winnipeg last week, a guy had called an open house to form a white supremisist group. No one showed up. Regardless though, this guy obviously doesn't have warm fuzzy feelings about other races. In fact, the chances are he is fairly open about his dislike for other races. It is to my understanding though, that as long as he doesn't advocate violence towards others, or engage in inflammatory public speech, it is legal for him to be a racist. Am I right on this?

[Stoker]

How will a "hate crime" be defined as compared to a "regular crime"?

If a straight homeless person mugs another straight person, then is caught, tried, and found guilty, the homeless person will be sentanced to "X" many years.

Now if you sub the straight victim with a homosexual, does the homeless person get a longer sentace because the victim was gay?

[Black Dog]

How will a "hate crime" be defined as compared to a "regular crime"?

If a straight homeless person mugs another straight person, then is caught, tried, and found guilty, the homeless person will be sentanced to "X" many years.

Now if you sub the straight victim with a homosexual, does the homeless person get a longer sentace because the victim was gay?

What would make your hypothetical mugging a hate crime would be if the gay indivdual was assaulted because they were gay, as oppossed to being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is to my understanding though, that as long as he doesn't advocate violence towards others, or engage in inflammatory public speech, it is legal for him to be a racist. Am I right on this?

Absolutely. Our ociety allows all kinds of vile individuals to voice their views, just a slong as they don't directly call for any actions that would breach the peace.

Think of the curbs on hate speech as an extension of the old axiom "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Stoker]

What would make your hypothetical mugging a hate crime would be if the gay indivdual was assaulted because they were gay, as oppossed to being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So how do you prove that the mugger attacked the gay person because of his sexual orientation?

What if the mugger had previous knowledge that the victim was gay and still attacked the person, but not because he was gay?

How will the Crown prove that a hate crime has been commited? Does the assailant have to be uttering anti gay "slogans" to be charged with a hate crime?

[Hugo]

As you can see, there's some very specific criterea as to what constitutes hate speech.

So, hate speech laws are completely redundant and unnecessary, then.

I think it would be very hard, if not impossible, to get a conviction under subsection 3 because anyone could argue the clauses listed therein. I can't be convicted for anything I wrote on this board because I can argue clauses a) it's true (I cited medical and scientific facts from acknowledged researchers and publications) and c) I made them in the public interest (I argued that homosexual behaviour posed a health risk, and was a symptom of underlying mental illness or distress that needed alleviation). Any half-decent lawyer could prevent a conviction against me.

The only thing that hate speech really addresses is incitement to violence or breach of the peace, and we have had laws on the books against that for centuries. If that's all it does, this law is pointless and redundant, and should be stricken down because it emphasises differences in a manner liable to incite bigotry.

[willy]

We already have hate laws that relate to violence, and we should. That is easy.

Bill C-250 is about communication of hate. This might be something that sounds good. I wonder what and how the judges can use these laws to limit my expression. To make political correctness a law will only damage our need for debate in Canada.

It is not about feeling being threatened, it may be only feeling threatened. What all would that entail?

Religious groups have rightly been worried about the impacts the legal interpretation might have on teachings in the Bible or Koran.

The only gain is that people can’t say hurtful things to gay and lesbians. I don't think people should say hurtful things but this should not be a law.

Sticks and stones......

[Black Dog]

I think it would be very hard, if not impossible, to get a conviction under subsection 3 because anyone could argue the clauses listed therein. I can't be convicted for anything I wrote on this board because I can argue clauses a) it's true (I cited medical and scientific facts from acknowledged researchers and publications) and c) I made them in the public interest (I argued that homosexual behaviour posed a health risk, and was a symptom of underlying mental illness or distress that needed alleviation). Any half-decent lawyer could prevent a conviction against me.

I've yet to see you incite any hatred against anyone. While I find your views on homosexuality to be repugnant, they do not constitute hate speech in that they don't incite viloence or hatred against a identifiable group. they are just one man's opinion which, along with $1.25, will be lucky to get you a cup of coffee.

The only thing that hate speech really addresses is incitement to violence or breach of the peace, and we have had laws on the books against that for centuries.

The fact of a commission of an act is not the only criterea the legal system judges actions. We have different categories of crimes (ie. manslaughter vs. first degree murder, commercial burglery vs.residential burglery) that reflect differences in targets, intent, negligence and so forth. Some crimes are dealt with more harshly once the intent is considered. Thus hate crimes.

Don't tell me you can't see the difference between common arson and, say, the firebombing of a Jewish school?

If that's all it does, this law is pointless and redundant, and should be stricken down because it emphasises differences in a manner liable to incite bigotry.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This implies that a limitation on freedom of speech can be justified if it is reasonable limit. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it is shown that it is not a reasonable limit.

This has been debated, appealled and upheld. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

So how do you prove that the mugger attacked the gay person because of his sexual orientation?

What if the mugger had previous knowledge that the victim was gay and still attacked the person, but not because he was gay?

How will the Crown prove that a hate crime has been commited? Does the assailant have to be uttering anti gay "slogans" to be charged with a hate crime?

I Am Not A Lawyer, so I'm not sure how "hate crimes" such as assault are prosecuted. We're dealing specifically with hate speech here. In other words, I dunno.

Religious groups have rightly been worried about the impacts the legal interpretation might have on teachings in the Bible or Koran.

This is addressed above.

[Stoker]

Don't tell me you can't see the difference between common arson and, say, the firebombing of a Jewish school?

This question wasn't addressed to me, but I find it intresting none the less.......If a Arson "firebombs" a Jewish school, but the Jewish school is only "one target" amongest many, which include schools, churchs, stores and homes of differnet races, would this be a hate crime?

And the inverse to this question, if I were a Neo Nazi and wanted to firebomb a Jewish "target", wouldn't it make sense to also firebomb none Jewish targets, so as to "cover me arse" and appear as just a "normal" arson if I was caught?

[Hugo]

Don't tell me you can't see the difference between common arson and, say, the firebombing of a Jewish school?

It shouldn't matter. The differences you have cited - manslaughter vs. first degree, residential vs. commercial burglary - are not different in motive, they are different in the enactment of the crime itself.

The motive for a crime is largely irrelevant beyond the very existence of a motive. It doesn't matter what the arsonist burns down except in terms of damage done. In a court of law, you are supposed to judge the crime, not the criminal, and if you make motivation a factor you are judging the criminal not by what he did but by what he thinks.

such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This implies that a limitation on freedom of speech can be justified if it is reasonable limit

To my mind, a free and democratic society ceases to be free and democratic when it places a limitation on freedom of speech beyond forbidding incitement to violence and breach of the peace. The Charter is an egregious and bigoted piece of law that deserves to be struck down, in my opinion; yet another one of these feel-good pieces of legislation that ensure bigotry and hatred will still be with us in generations to come by laying emphasis on what should be becoming transparent.

[Alliance Fanatic]

If a homosexual firebombs a Church should it be considered a hate crime. We have a double standard, we have made "victim" classes of people. Are society has also made an evil class of people [White, Male, Christian] I think that we should treat everybody as an individual before the court of law. Another fact to point out is that since the firebombing of the Jewish School could have been done by muslims, I doubt they would be charged with hate crimes. Hate Crime laws only apply when white people are the perpetrators.

[Alliance Fanatic]

My concern is that radical gays will start to go after anybody that disagrees with them. In BC a school counsellor disagreed with reading material from gay magazines that displayed the "Joy of Sadomasichism". He was fired for being a bigot.

I personally don't care what gay's do in the privacy of their own home, but right now it seems that everybody is forced to believe that homosexuality is an acceptable behavior, and gay pride parades, and gay positive programs in school must be in place everywhere. I also have a huge concern over human rights boards. In Edmonton the elected mayor refused to have a gay pride parade, yet was forced to because he was sued. That is what scares people about the gay rights agenda. That we are all losing alot of our freedoms due to political correctness.

[August1991]

BlackDog, for once I thought you made reasonable points.

If I understand properly, the Americans have "hate crimes" and "hate speech".

Hate crimes would be committing a crime which was motivated in whole or in part based on, for example, ethnicity. Hugo wondered whether motivation is relevant.

The motive for a crime is largely irrelevant beyond the very existence of a motive.

I think Hugo is wrong.

I can easily hide my gold Rolex against thieves but it is hard to hide my black skin. Crime against the latter should carry, for this reason alone, a greater penalty.

BD, you give a good example for restrictions on free speech.

Forbidding people from shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is an example where "free speech" is limited based on its negative effect on others (and I'm aware it's a faulty eample).

First, note that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is likely to lead to injury. But, shouting "Fire!" in a city park will at most raise eye brows.

Restricting "hate speech" combines both these ideas. "Hate speech" is the incitement to commit an act (that may well never occur) against an identifiable group rather than committing the act itself.

ACLU on Hate Speech

In Canada, it seems to me, we've done something different and our law refers to "hate propaganda".

Canada's Criminal Code

Examine 319 (2) where is states:

319 (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

What constitutes "hatred"? I don't know. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association web site is silent on the issue.

Incidentally, the import of C-250 is to include gays and lesbians in the definition of "any identifiable group". This also strikes me as strange in that one's ethnicity is identifiable in a way that one's sexual orientation is not.

My fear of "political correctness" stems from this attitude (of BiGunner to me):

You are free to argue your views on why you think gay lifestyles are not 'healthy'...from your point of view.

Nowhere have I stated here my point of view about gay "lifestyles". C-250 is being used as some kind of litmus test to hound or bully people.

Lastly, as to the nonsense expressed by AF, I agree with free speech but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate vulgarity in my living room. This public forum is also an open but private club. I kind of liked BlackDog's suggestion of allowing "plonking" (filtering by individual choice) certain posters.

[Black Dog]

It shouldn't matter. The differences you have cited - manslaughter vs. first degree, residential vs. commercial burglary - are not different in motive, they are different in the enactment of the crime itself.

The motive for a crime is largely irrelevant beyond the very existence of a motive. It doesn't matter what the arsonist burns down except in terms of damage done. In a court of law, you are supposed to judge the crime, not the criminal, and if you make motivation a factor you are judging the criminal not by what he did but by what he thinks.

But we do judge the criminal. We determine if the crime was intentional and premeditated. We determine the mental state of the alleged perpatrator. These are some of the factors in determining whether to charge someone with murder or manslaughter or if they are even fit to be held responsible.

As far as hate crimes go, my interpretation (again, IANAL) is that a hate crime is a crime that would not have occurred had the victim not been a member of an identifiable group. What makes the firebombing of a Jewish school a hate crime is that it would not have occurred had it been a regular public school. It is the hatred of the group that motivated the crime, therefore the motive is integral; to the crime's occurance.

. C-250 is being used as some kind of litmus test to hound or bully people.

And some of the hysterical and factualy incorrect responses to it have been used a s proof of some "politically correct" "gay agenda" war on Christianity and heterosexuals. So both sides are using it for political gain (no surprise there).

[Hugo]

We only judge crime by the victim where the victim is judged to be more helpless. For example, rape against a man or a woman is punished pretty much equally, but rape against a child is punished more severely because it is given that the child is a more vulnerable member of society who needs greater protection from the law.

Does it promote racial, gender or sexual equality to legislate in the belief that gays, or blacks, or women are weaker and need special protection and privilege under the law? Children are not viewed as equal before the law, but then, there are no children's rights groups campaigning for children to be given equal rights and responsibilities with adults (except NAMBLA - but I think we all stand on the same side of the line regarding them). If homosexuals, blacks or women want to be equal with heterosexuals, whites, or men, should they not accept equality before the law too? As long as they are not, they aren't equal, are they?

The only justice as I see it is equality before the law. Crime should be judged by the criminal act and the criminal, not by the victim.

But we do judge the criminal. We determine if the crime was intentional and premeditated. We determine the mental state of the alleged perpatrator.

But none of these touch upon the prejudices and beliefs of the criminal. Serial rape is often a sign of hatred of women, so are some rapes hate crimes, and others not? If a rapist only raped black women, would that make him a hate criminal, and should he be subjected to a harsher penalty than a rapist who only raped white women, or who raped an ethnically diverse group of women?

[August1991]

Does it promote racial, gender or sexual equality to legislate in the belief that gays, or blacks, or women are weaker and need special protection and privilege under the law?

Equality is not the issue, Hugo. Nor in fact should justice. The severity of the penalty should be determined, in part, by the ability of the victim to avoid the crime.

If it costs you $10 to install a burglar-proof lock, then you should be encouraged to do so since installing the lock is a cheap way to prevent theft. The penalty for such crimes should be relatively small.

It is costly for members of identifiable minorites to avoid crimes specifically against them. Hence, the penalties for such crimes should relatively great.

Hugo, have you have ever lived in a society in which you were an identifiable minority? Do you realize how hard it is to hide or blend in? That is the issue.

My points are:

First, do gays truly fall into this notion of "identifiable" minority? (People wearing wide lapel, leisure suits are identifiable too.)

Second, we are not speaking about violence to gays but rather incitement to violence (hate speech).

Third, the Canadian law seems to note incitement to "hatred". What's that?

Fourth, the US has a clearly written First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

that limits the judiciary.

We have a freedom of expression clause that is tantamount to open judicial review:

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

... and:

1. ...subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society

Heck, if we decide to go down this Roman/French Civil Code route as the Americans did, then let's do it. Instead, we Canadians combined a Code with Common Law interpretation! WTF?

Lastly, I am offended by the treatment people receive if they object to the passage of this law, C-250. They are branded as extremists when in fact they are peaceable people who believe in "live and let live".

There is an idea about that Canada is being "progressive" with such laws. It's not true. We are being foolish.

The 1960s were apparently a time of rebellion and breaking taboos. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

The writers of the American Constitution also lived in a time of rebellion, but I think they gave serious thought to what "freedom" is.

Svend Robinson and Alan Rock, even Joe Clark, are reminants of the 1960s. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were in a very different class.