5 ms·

> the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression Seems vague, what counts as promot

by d0lph 9y ago

> the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression Seems vague, what counts as promoting hatred? If someone makes fun of the 1000+ genders and counting, do they go to jail? And from the bill: (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 (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. [0] [0] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html#h-93 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.htm...

mikeash 9y ago
So, what does actually count as promoting hatred, legally speaking?
- d0lph 9y ago
  > In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000 >In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive I am cherry picking a bit, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Human_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cas...
  - mikeash 9y ago
    That's rather vague. "Vicious and dehumanizing" could be anything from "I dislike you" to "we will murder your entire ethnic group." The remarks in Warman v. Winnicki, which I won't reproduce here, look to be much closer to the second. For example: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/2006/2006chrt20/2006chrt20.html#par70 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/2006/2006chrt20/2006ch... I'm having trouble finding the original material for Warman v. Northern Alliance, but according to http://www.richardwarman.ca/?page_id=6 http://www.richardwarman.ca/?page_id=6 it involved calls for murder and genocide. If that's the standard the law requires, it sounds like a good law. Free speech does not include death threats. Even the US does not go that far.
- alacombe 9y ago
  As per C-16, calling someone "Sir" instead of "Xir" if the person addressed wants to be called "Xir". The incident between Ben Shapiro and Zoey Tur could have qualified if it had happened in Canada under the rule of the Human Rights Tribunal. Also, recently, a landlord got convicted by that so called "human right tribunal" for not having removed his shoes in a muslim tenant's apartment.
  - api 9y ago
    Yes, this is insane. I just object to the idea that this insanity validates other kinds of insanity like neo-Nazi ideology. It's all bullshit.
    - alacombe 9y ago
      I have no idea where I mentioned to validates the Nazi/neo-Nazi ideology. Nazism is a national socialism which, much like fascism, has nothing to do with conservativism, quite the opposite. That being said, this completely ignore the fact that Nazi's mass murder were preceded and followed by Communist mass murder, not just in the USSR (including the Gulag and purges dating back to the October Revolution), but also China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. Mao's regime alone is responsible for twice the death toll of WWII. The leading ideological cause of death in the 20th century is not fascism, it's communism. That being said, I challenge you to find any pro-Nazi argument in the discourse of either Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern, Ben Shapiro or even (on the Canadian side) Jordan Peterson.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        I find it rather odd that you deny validating Naziism and then spend most of your comment defending it by saying communism was worse.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Do you have more information on those? Wikipedia briefly mentions the pronoun thing, but it seems to be made up by someone opposed to the law.

by d0lph 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

So, what does actually count as promoting hatred, legally speaking?

d0lph 9y ago
> In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000 >In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive I am cherry picking a bit, more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Human_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cas...
- mikeash 9y ago
  That's rather vague. "Vicious and dehumanizing" could be anything from "I dislike you" to "we will murder your entire ethnic group." The remarks in Warman v. Winnicki, which I won't reproduce here, look to be much closer to the second. For example: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/2006/2006chrt20/2006chrt20.html#par70 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/chrt/doc/2006/2006chrt20/2006ch... I'm having trouble finding the original material for Warman v. Northern Alliance, but according to http://www.richardwarman.ca/?page_id=6 http://www.richardwarman.ca/?page_id=6 it involved calls for murder and genocide. If that's the standard the law requires, it sounds like a good law. Free speech does not include death threats. Even the US does not go that far.
alacombe 9y ago
As per C-16, calling someone "Sir" instead of "Xir" if the person addressed wants to be called "Xir". The incident between Ben Shapiro and Zoey Tur could have qualified if it had happened in Canada under the rule of the Human Rights Tribunal. Also, recently, a landlord got convicted by that so called "human right tribunal" for not having removed his shoes in a muslim tenant's apartment.
- api 9y ago
  Yes, this is insane. I just object to the idea that this insanity validates other kinds of insanity like neo-Nazi ideology. It's all bullshit.
  - alacombe 9y ago
    I have no idea where I mentioned to validates the Nazi/neo-Nazi ideology. Nazism is a national socialism which, much like fascism, has nothing to do with conservativism, quite the opposite. That being said, this completely ignore the fact that Nazi's mass murder were preceded and followed by Communist mass murder, not just in the USSR (including the Gulag and purges dating back to the October Revolution), but also China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. Mao's regime alone is responsible for twice the death toll of WWII. The leading ideological cause of death in the 20th century is not fascism, it's communism. That being said, I challenge you to find any pro-Nazi argument in the discourse of either Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern, Ben Shapiro or even (on the Canadian side) Jordan Peterson.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I find it rather odd that you deny validating Naziism and then spend most of your comment defending it by saying communism was worse.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Do you have more information on those? Wikipedia briefly mentions the pronoun thing, but it seems to be made up by someone opposed to the law.