4 ms·

Huh, could you link to the law?

Karunamon 9y ago
They're referring to C-16, but the idea that it criminalizes speech is bogus. The law only steps in if it's happening in the context of employment, public accomodations, etc. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-ca...
grzm 9y ago
Likely they're referring to https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ I'm providing this to be helpful. Discussions on this on HN have historically devolved incredibly quickly into flamewars. Anyone choosing to discuss this I ask that you reflect on why you want to do so: are you looking to truly understand what others think on this? Are you truly open to having your opinion changed? Are you hoping to convince others of your position? Shout down those you disagree with? If you're looking for something other than truly productive, respectful, thoughtful, charitable discussion, please refrain from commenting here.
- chc 9y ago
  For anyone who thinks this is a legitimate concern, just click through and read the full text of the bill. It's like one page long and has zero mentions of pronouns. All it does is extend the same protections to gender identity that already exist for things like race, age, religion and disability.
zo1 9y ago
Here's one that is being written into South African law currently. http://rationalstandard.com/hate-speech-bill-road-hell-paved-good-intentions/ http://rationalstandard.com/hate-speech-bill-road-hell-paved... Full text of the bill: http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/bills/2016-HateCrimes-HateSpeechBill.pdf http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/bills/2016-HateCrimes-... And I'm pretty sure that choosing the wrong pronoun purposefully when referring to a person, in front of them, would then fall under the category of "hate speech" through this bill.
- chc 9y ago
  I am not familiar with how these sorts of things are commonly interpreted in South Africa, but the it doesn't sound like that from a reading of the text. Why do you think it would extend to referring to a person with the wrong pronoun? It seems to define "hate speech" as speech that threatens or incites further harmful action, not merely offensive speech, and acknowledges constitutional protection for speech that does not "constitute incitement to cause harm."
  - zo1 9y ago
    It's a bit buried, the important part is in section 4, this one: Any person who intentionally, by means of any communication whatsoever, communicates to one or more persons in a manner that [...] is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of persons. Further down: [...] which demonstrates a clear intention [...] to [...] bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons, based on race, gender, sex, which includes intersex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, disability, HIV status, nationality, gender identity [...] is guilty of the offence of hate speech. So the definition of hate-speech, which carries a criminal penalty of up-to 3-10 years, now includes communication that is "abusive or insulting". Which is a very vague concept, and I don't think there is any clear expansion on it in the bill itself. Hopefully the wording changes before it gets passed. Otherwise I'm going to have to take my family out of this country for fear of political persecution. What else do you call it when insult and ridicule against groups becomes hate-speech. Edit. Fixed penalty years, up to.

They're referring to C-16, but the idea that it criminalizes speech is bogus. The law only steps in if it's happening in the context of employment, public accomodations, etc. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-ca...

grzm 9y ago

Likely they're referring to https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/ I'm providing this to be helpful. Discussions on this on HN have historically devolved incredibly quickly into flamewars. Anyone choosing to discuss this I ask that you reflect on why you want to do so: are you looking to truly understand what others think on this? Are you truly open to having your opinion changed? Are you hoping to convince others of your position? Shout down those you disagree with? If you're looking for something other than truly productive, respectful, thoughtful, charitable discussion, please refrain from commenting here.

chc 9y ago
For anyone who thinks this is a legitimate concern, just click through and read the full text of the bill. It's like one page long and has zero mentions of pronouns. All it does is extend the same protections to gender identity that already exist for things like race, age, religion and disability.

zo1 9y ago

Here's one that is being written into South African law currently. http://rationalstandard.com/hate-speech-bill-road-hell-paved-good-intentions/ http://rationalstandard.com/hate-speech-bill-road-hell-paved... Full text of the bill: http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/bills/2016-HateCrimes-HateSpeechBill.pdf http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/bills/2016-HateCrimes-... And I'm pretty sure that choosing the wrong pronoun purposefully when referring to a person, in front of them, would then fall under the category of "hate speech" through this bill.

chc 9y ago
I am not familiar with how these sorts of things are commonly interpreted in South Africa, but the it doesn't sound like that from a reading of the text. Why do you think it would extend to referring to a person with the wrong pronoun? It seems to define "hate speech" as speech that threatens or incites further harmful action, not merely offensive speech, and acknowledges constitutional protection for speech that does not "constitute incitement to cause harm."
- zo1 9y ago
  It's a bit buried, the important part is in section 4, this one: Any person who intentionally, by means of any communication whatsoever, communicates to one or more persons in a manner that [...] is threatening, abusive or insulting towards any other person or group of persons. Further down: [...] which demonstrates a clear intention [...] to [...] bring into contempt or ridicule, any person or group of persons, based on race, gender, sex, which includes intersex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, religion, belief, culture, language, birth, disability, HIV status, nationality, gender identity [...] is guilty of the offence of hate speech. So the definition of hate-speech, which carries a criminal penalty of up-to 3-10 years, now includes communication that is "abusive or insulting". Which is a very vague concept, and I don't think there is any clear expansion on it in the bill itself. Hopefully the wording changes before it gets passed. Otherwise I'm going to have to take my family out of this country for fear of political persecution. What else do you call it when insult and ridicule against groups becomes hate-speech. Edit. Fixed penalty years, up to.