3 ms·
> 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 adjud
by 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 agoThat'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.