28 ms·

Canada to make online hate speech a crime punishable by fine

245 points by elorant 5y ago

jrgaston 5y ago
Canadian-American here. From what I've observed of Canada I'd expect the law will be narrowly defined and the penalties weak and rarely applied. Plus, the courts are slow as can be so I wouldn't expect an unleashing of prosecutions (though I realize this isn't a defense of a bad law). The US, in my experience, is far more severe in its criminal penalties for all kinds of things. In Canada, you wait years for trial (not in jail, you're out free) and then get a slap on the wrist.
- joshrw 5y ago
  The chilling effects it will have on free speech should not be discounted, though. Despite the patchy enforcement and relatively small fines, people will self-censor rather than risk saying anything "illegal".
  - nick_ 5y ago
    That's... the point of the bill. People will stop seeing their participation in online hate-speech as a viable use of their time.
version_five 5y ago
"Hate Speech" is a super political term, and I would argue probably should have special protection at this point. It's not much of a leap to see this used to enforce current political orthodoxy. We already have laws about inciting to violence as I understand it, which is justifiable. This makes it an offence to "expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination".
- errantmind 5y ago
  I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. These carve-outs in 'freedom of speech' will most definitely be abused if history is any guide.
  - StandardFuture 5y ago
    They are being downvoted because there are a scarily growing number of people who believe that as long as the tyranny is "on their side" then it is ok. Or perhaps, the downvoters are just sociopaths?
  - nl 5y ago
    > These carve-outs in 'freedom of speech' will most definitely be abused if history is any guide. Which history is that? Genuine question - I'm aware of places where speech is suppressed because the justice system is not independent of the political system. I'm aware of cases where speech is suppressed by the threat of being sued by private individuals. But where are the cases where hate-speech carve-outs have been abused in democracies?
    - neartheplain 5y ago
      Here in the United States, criticism of Israeli state policy as it affects Palenstians is often labeled antisemitic. Laws have been passed on that basis to proscribe the pro-Palestinean Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement [0]: >In the US, a large number of anti-BDS laws have been passed. As of 2020, 32 states have laws that prevent boycotts against Israel and a number of non-binding resolutions have been passed denouncing BDS. A majority of these have passed with strong bipartisan support. Two federal acts have been introduced, the 2017 Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the 2019 Combating BDS Act, both intended to deprive entities participating in boycotts of Israel of government contract work. In several states, these laws have been challenged on First Amendment grounds for violating citizens' freedom of speech. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Anti-BDS_laws_and_resolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sancti...
    - bccdee 5y ago
      There's a good overview of it here [1]. The author of the article has a lot of weird twitter opinions these days, but the incidents he's citing here are all real. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
- StandardFuture 5y ago
  > used to enforce current political orthodoxy. Which is a nice way of saying that this is the beginnings of a new authoritarian and totalitarian age. It should be very worrying to everyone to see speech be legally punished in the West. Slippery slopes do exist and this is one.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    this is probably a good point to quote the article "The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country." Contrary to popular (American) opinion laws regulating speech are in fact not a new and authoritarian invention but have existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries. To have a rational discussion about this when it comes to countries that don't happen to be the US, like in this case, it would probably be good to not act as if these laws were somehow conjured up out of nothing. The United Kingdom, probably having a claim to be one of the world's longest lasting liberal democracies, has laws concerning speech that in many cases go well beyond laws on continental Europe, so any discussion about speech in the Western (and even specifically Anglo) tradition probably should be had on that ground, rather than just vague pointing about slippery slopes.
    - StandardFuture 5y ago
      > but have in fact existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries Yes, and that is backwards, uncivilized, and philosophically unsophisticated. It is quite literally beneath where we should be as a modern human civilization. We defeat people saying things we disagree with with reason and not with fines. There are many reasons why people fled many countries in the West to America in 1800s-1900s. One of them was to escape crony and corrupt authoritarianism in Europe and elsewhere at the time.
      - Barrin92 5y ago
        So everyone who holds any restrictive position on speech, incompatible with your own is uncivilized and philosophically unsophisticated, as in the rest of the world? Civilizations thousands of years old are... uncivilized? See this is the supreme irony. You've turned freedom of speech into dogmatic faith. Ironically enough, no discourse is so dogmatic and blind and unable to question its own values as the American one. You can question everything, just not your own values on speech. It's all just platitudes about authoritarianism and slippery slopes and ironically enough unoriginal, replicated talking points.
- icegreentea2 5y ago
  Worth noting that Canada already considers hate speech a crime. For example (from wiki), the two most relevant existing laws would be: > Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15] > Section 319(2): Promoting hatred—makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15] What the planned legislation does is take the current working definition of hate speech (as set by Canada's Supreme Court) and put it into law, as well as (effectively) defining the relationship between online speech, and the public/private statements in the existing law.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Just reading what you are quoting, it sounds like 319(1) is not allowing for truth or intent as a defense. And it raises the question of what "likely to lead to a breach of the peace" means. Hindsight is one thing. But does the law imply a proverbial "reasonable person" standard in advance? Regarding 319(2), by saying "identifiable group", it sounds like it is covering all political groups or parties. Canadians are more polite, I know, but it seems like at this point 319(2) would cover virtually everything that passes for political discourse south of the border. I wouldn't assume these are enforced as written, or as they appear to me to be written. But if they were, they seem kind of extreme. Not because I'm insisting on the arbitrary standard of the US first amendment, but they do seem very broad.
    - icegreentea2 5y ago
      Heh, next section: > Section 319(3): Four defences—provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if: > the person establishes that the statements communicated were true; > 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; > the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or > in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.[15] As for the 'reasonable person' standard? I think that's how most laws as interpreted. For "identifiable group", the definition is: > any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. Certainly hate speech has the potential to be widely/broadly interpreted, and one could imagine scenarios where they would be problematic. I think broadly speaking, Canadians are aware of the potential of mis-use, but are generally "okay with it" based on the relative restraint that decades of different governments from different parties have shown. Which I think is why I am kind of weary of changes to the law and policy in general (though I really haven't processed this particular change yet. I think the inclusion of the Supreme Court definition is pretty benign, but not sure about the online carve outs...). I think that have this 'oh shit, this is a real baddy' recourse is useful, but it's validity and usefulness can only be sustained with restrained use. I am not particularly optimistic on this current government's ability to show restraint (and I broadly support their policies and platforms...).
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  I hate mudflinging as much as the next guy, but how would someone even engage in politics at all without statements that could be described as detestation or vilification? Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them? Yes yes, there's "on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." That seems about as firm as a plastic bag blowing through a parking lot. I'm sure that category won't grow larger and larger until it's impossible to criticize the powerful or the status quo at all.
  - Griffinsauce 5y ago
    I don't even know where to start with this. > Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. This is not the definition of politics, this is how it is being executed in some places, there are plenty of places where this is not the default method. > If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them? This only makes sense if Twitter is your only source of political news/opinion. You may think the other group is swell but have different opinions on how to get to the same end goal. You may have a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like or what our current one looks like (ie. different perspectives) . None of that includes "fundamentally bad". See: all parties that have splintered off from a common one. They are still in the same corner but have adjusted their views, strategy or goals. They don't suddenly think their earlier compatriots are evil incarnate.
    - whiddershins 5y ago
      Interestingly, I think an argument could be made that ‘having a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like’ is equivalent to thinking the other is evil or at minimum immoral. Willing to be told I’m wrong.
      - jsmeaton 5y ago
        Disconnect the statement from actual politics and think about the concept in a more local setting. Here's a somewhat contrived example. There are two engineers in your company trying to work out the best way to reduce the rate of bugs being introduced into a system. One of them is advocating for pair programming, and the other is advocating for a dedicated testing team. Both are trying to convince the other engineers that their method is best. They may argue in good faith. They may resort to calling the other silly names. This is politics on a local scale. There's nothing to imply that the other side is evil, immoral, or even wrong. The fact that current democratic politics has devolved into mudslinging isn't an inherent fact of politics - it just seems to be an effective way to win these days.
- Griffinsauce 5y ago
  > "Hate Speech" is a super political term Laws are political. We seem to have completely lost the meaning of this word. Did you mean something like "controversial"?
- justbored123 5y ago
  You don't seem to understand the basic concept of division of power. The law is enforced by the judicial branch based on the written law + legal precedents on an impartial manner, not by the "current political orthodoxy". If you question the judicial branch impartiality about this matter, you question the judicial branch itself because there is no reason to trust their impartial judgment in any other matter. If that is the case, I suggest that you make and argument for anarchy instead of this one.
potiuper 5y ago
Have to rewrite history first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada
akomtu 5y ago
This "hate speech" is the modern heresy. The trick is tired, but still works surprisingly well: invent a gibberish buzzword, e.g. "truth denialism", pass a law to ban the buzzword without specifying what the buzzword means, generously extend the meaning of the buzzword and label anyone you disagree with a "truth denialist". It's a form of hijacking democratic societies.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  This is literally a south park episode when Randy says the n word on wheel of fortune. But I agree wholeheartedly. Leftism has become a religion at this point. Almost like a pagan religion where pandering priests with political power grant some winey peasant a right to claim something antithetical to democratic societies for an arbitrary reason.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  For a contemporary example, "white supremacist domestic terrorism".
egberts1 5y ago
Blame 🇨🇦 Canada!
recursivedoubts 5y ago
the worse, the better
swader999 5y ago
Be interesting to see what they would say in this new law about someone wearing black face like our prime minister has more times than he can remember.
verytrivial 5y ago
"[Hate speech] threatens the safety and well-being of its targets." The UK is in the throes of trying to define what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society. The problem seems to stem from the parameters of 'harm' being defined almost entirely by the victim. There are claims that arguments against certain idiologies "deny the existence" of groups, and further that expressing these idea seems to lead directly to self harm and suicides. So, "speech that causes harm" and makes people feel hated. Bingo: 'hate speech'. But what happens when there isn't any hate or targeted 'detesting' going on? (Or good data on suicides for that matter.) It's open for abuse by a mob. Not a good path to head down in a pluralist, liberal society IMHO. It's strange to me that at least within nations, the previously war-starting disagreements about the finer details of the Abrahamic religions seem to have chosen different orbits within society, politely nod to each other and know no good will come from trying to lock horns. The kids on Twitter now have apparently equally strongly held beliefs about other stuff but are utterly gob-smacked that other people won't agree with them even though they KNOW THEY'RE RIGHT.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  > what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court stated that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    I wish people would quit trotting that out. Shouting "fire" in a theater is perfectly legal.
    - edoceo 5y ago
      Please try and tell me/us how it works out. I'm not willing to try. And, here's the big W on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... "speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true."
S_A_P 5y ago
Today’s dissent is tomorrow’s hate speech. We are sliding down the slippery slope.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Except how many people now upset at this we’re glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump? It’s really easy to say you defend things when it’s theory and not “a bad man who says mean things”. It is a slippery slope, and we’re already well down it. Too many people continuing to cheer it along until it’ll be too late.
  - loceng 5y ago
    Those are private platforms and not government doing the moderating.
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      Right, yes, and this is totally unrelated even when you have one campaign begging FAANG to censor a political rival before the election… https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-biden-emails/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-bid... (Notice CNN’s take that it’s bad Facebook didn’t do more, not that this was a political kneecapping… still, CNN accidentally did a journalism) It’s a private company! Build your own Facebook! (Nevermind that Google with their nearly infinite money tried and spectacularly failed). Ignoring the reality it’s a monopoly. The spirit of free speech extends past the US Government. If it’s not illegal it shouldn’t be censored by what is effectively a common carrier, this is why everyone is in a rush to expand what is illegal.
    - busymom0 5y ago
      "Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocence is only required in a legal context, not a social context. You see a similar pattern with free speech: people try to defend private censorship by saying that the First Amendment only applies to the government, while ignoring the fact that the amendment is just a legal codification of the general principle of free speech. It's a poor defense in free speech cases and it's a poor defense here, but I'm sure that's the defense you would hear. It's shocking that so many are unable to grasp the values that generate cultural mores, virtues, and customary law. As you note, the principle of free speech is codified in law. The underlying value is truth. Without the free exchange of ideas humankind cannot arrive at truth. The same with the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty, without which we cannot arrive at justice, which, in turn, requires ascertaining truth. The practices of free speech and due process are both manifestations of truth-seeking as the virtue by which we find truth. The scientific method is also a codification of truth seeking methods. These people are without principle and seek only power. Truth is their enemy. Evil defined."
phendrenad2 5y ago
Can't wait to get extradited to Canada for insulting someone's mum online!
freeslave 5y ago
Despite all the hand-wringing in this thread, Canada has had anti-hate speech laws for some time now and our society has yet to collapse. https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-restriction-hate-speech-canada https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-rest... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
- undfg 5y ago
  China is also far from collapsing.
  - krrrh 5y ago
    You’re probably right, but most people also thought this about the Soviet Union in the eighties.
- headsoup 5y ago
  All good then so long as no one weaponises them in future...
- mastazi 5y ago
  "Not collapsing" is not the optimum we should aim for.
  - rezendi 5y ago
    No, we should at least aim for the ability to recognize understated sarcasm.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
legostormtroopr 5y ago
The think that always worries me about "hate speech" is the lack of clarity of definition. If you said 'Kill all X' where X is any protected group you would almost certainly fall afoul of hate speech regulation. By all metrics "Kill all X" is online vilification against a group of people because of superficial characteristics. Yet for some reason "Kill all Men" is totally acceptable in online discourse. Because of the lack of punishment, anyone against whom "Kill all X" is acceptable finds themselves opposing hate speech regulation - as for them it is useless and does nothing to protect them. Secondly, because of the lack of consistent (and biased) enforcement of hate speech rules, everyone should be concerned about if and when hate speech against them goes from being protected to normalised.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  I would honestly like to see that challenged in court. If the Canadians truly are vying for egalitarianism, anybody saying that should be fined. If they arent, then we know its just a bootlicking law.
  - ryanmentor 5y ago
    Which groups in Canada are known for challenging laws this way?
- travoc 5y ago
  We’ll know it when we see it.
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  kill all meat eaters kill all rapists kill all terrorists kill all pedophiles kill all polluters kill all racist kill all.... hm. at which point does this go from rhetoric hyperbole to common sense to punished by law
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "The think that always worries me about "hate speech" is the lack of clarity of definition." That is probably a bug, not a feature. Once something as nebulous as an emotion is being punished, people will stay away from controversial topics just in case.
pyuser583 5y ago
Ok so how is Trudeau Jr. going deal with the fact the Internet is international? Is he going to censor messages from other countries? Will Canadians be allowed to read hate speech published in another country? It seems it only applies to producing it. But the problem he’s describing isn’t cause by the production of hate speech, but it’s consumption.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
busymom0 5y ago
The "war on drugs" was very effective. So lets do this to speech and guns and everything political. The "porn" ban worked out great for my home country too... Someone with multiple black and brown face incidents legislating "hate speech" is ironic.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  We'll have to run speakeasies that fulfill the term's prima facia interpretation.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  What an odd straw man. The war on drugs failed because it unrealistically tried to ban all drugs. No one is trying to ban all guns, and no one is trying to ban "all things political." If your entire belief system is lumped in with "hate speech," it's a good signal to reexamine your alignment over crying censorship.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    > If your entire belief system is lumped in with "hate speech," This ad hominem and odd straw man projection is exactly proving my point. Keep pushing it further until the pendulum swings back and the censorship you are pushing for comes back to bite back in the behind. And I won't be there to defend then. Just yesterday we had a trending post on HN about the censorship of Palestinians. The Palestinians are getting censored under the mask of "anti-semitism" and the Israelis / christians are getting censored under the mask of "islamaphobic". Women not wanting biological men competing in women's sports are being censored under the mask of "transphobic".
    - seattle_spring 5y ago
      > The Palestinians are getting censored under the mask of "anti-semitism" and the Israelis / christians are getting censored under the mask of "islamaphobic" Are you comparing Palestinian life under apartheid to Christians getting their "all Muslims are terrorists" Facebook posts deleted?
Animats 5y ago
This is bad. The bill does not define "hate speech"; that's left for later administrative determination. All we have so far is “expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” Combining "detestation" ("I don't like you") with vilification ("You're evil") is a concern. The first is legitimate opinion. The second is defamation. For which truth is a defense under US law. The committee report that fed into this bill [1] is scary. "Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech."[2] This is at least in part about suppressing political speech on certain issues. YMCA of Canada proposed a definition: "integrate an intersectional gender equity lens and consider the gendered impacts of anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Xenophobia in any definition of “hate” and “online hate”". Think of trying to defend against a claim of that in court. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs proposed the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the one that includes some kinds of criticism of the Israeli government.[3] This isn't classic hate speech, intended to incite people to violence. Such as "Hang Mike Pence". This is far, far broader. [1] https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-29/page-57#11 https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report... [2] https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do?q=whatcott https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/inde... [3] https://www.jta.org/2021/01/15/global/the-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism-and-why-people-are-fighting-over-it-explained https://www.jta.org/2021/01/15/global/the-ihra-definition-of...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- neartheplain 5y ago
  I suspect anti-white speech would not be considered hate speech according to the YMCA of Canada. An "intersectional equity lens" often implies the redefinition as racism as racism-plus-power, viewing all whites as empowered and all non-whites as oppressed. We know anti-white speech can and does incite violence, as it did last week in Daytona Beach: https://twitter.com/gwupoe/status/1409137548899893251 https://twitter.com/gwupoe/status/1409137548899893251 It can also incite white identity politics, which to me is the much bigger problem caused by this sort of law.
jjmorrison 5y ago
Terrifying...
- Griffinsauce 5y ago
  It's quite hilarious to see this sentiment from all the Americans in the comments while the actual Canadians seem to mostly say "this was already the case?" and people from other countries not being impressed at all. Yes, laws around speech should be well designed, but the entire premise of them seems to already induce this pearl-clutching. That's quite puzzling to me, especially since the US has lax laws around speech, but definitely has them, it's not free.
  - jjmorrison 5y ago
    I'm Canadian FWIW.
spoonjim 5y ago
I got banned from Reddit for stating that “all murderers should be executed,” which is literally a policy position. I think online free speech is not long for this world which will leave the voting booth the only remaining anonymous forum. I expect many more “how the %%*$& did THEY win?!” elections.
- jszymborski 5y ago
  Nothing is stopping you from hosting your own website, publishing your own leaflets, making your own podcast, etc... stating those views. Frankly this has little to do with the parent post.
  - ergot_vacation 5y ago
    Every modern attempt at starting competing services to major online forums has met with: -A firestorm of slander from media outlets controlled by competitors. -Cartel-style harassment and denial of basic services required to run the site, hosting, financial, etc, again, by competitors. Competition is not a solution when the game is rigged. People literally are "stopping you," and they are some very powerful, influential people at that.
swayvil 5y ago
"hate speech" is essentially synonymous with "wrong think". Let's all keep that in mind. Do you really want a consortium of oligarchs telling you what you can say?
- HNfriend234 5y ago
  This law is simply guised as fighting "hate speech" but in practice it is designed to eliminate political enemies.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
prvc 5y ago
>“Hate speech directly contradicts the values underlying freedom of expression and our Charter of Rights,” Lametti said. “It threatens the safety and well-being of its targets. It silences and intimidates, especially when the target is a vulnerable person or community. When hate speech spreads, its victims lose their freedom to participate in civil society online.” Just want to note the extraordinary audacity of this statement: reversing the adversely affected parties, while posturing as an affirmation of the very values it is attempting to undermine.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  It is an audaciously wrongheaded statement. It puts a veneer of concern for the oppressed and their rights over a violation of the rights of those this law intends to oppress.
mgbmtl 5y ago
I don't understand, hate speech online is already illegal. It seems like they are shifting further the responsibility of hate speech to individual, rather than the social media platforms that encourage it with rage-bait? "The proposal would punish social media users who broke the law but exempt social media companies that host such content from fines."
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  > hate speech online is already illegal Which country/law are you talking about?
  - mgbmtl 5y ago
    Canada (the article being about Canada). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
jollybean 5y ago
I think the issue boils down to the definition, and how the courts will interpret it. The definition is far too vague, and the courts will do as they please with it. There will be some weird fallout over this.
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  No, the real place to leverage this is before the courts. I'm not sure of how it works in Canada but in the US, the District Attorney can choose which cases to pursue. A savvy DA (or the Canadian equivalent) can pick cases that fit the public's current notion of "hate speech" and quietly pass on the ones who don't. Therefore, setting precedents for later cases. Judges can't rule in cases which aren't presented.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > can pick cases that fit the public's current notion of "hate speech" and quietly pass on the ones who don't. Prosecutorial discretion needs to be considered a crime against humanity.
WalterBright 5y ago
People burned at the stake for heresy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heret...
- HNfriend234 5y ago
  Still happening today. Except we call it cancel culture instead.
motohagiography 5y ago
The rationale behind this regulation is insincere, and in my view, it is an expression of weakness and fear by an out of touch governing class who know they have overstepped their remit, however, the effects could be interesting. The interesting effects will be toward one of two poles: either the regulation will relieve conservative forums (if they even exist anymore) of the burden of dealing with people who abuse their tolerance with extreme behavior, which will improve their conversations and make the discourse of those forums clearer - or - the regulations will be used by a provisional group of party affiliated trolls who will flood opposition sites with "hate speech," to get them "investigated" and knocked offline using this as a pretext at key moments under the regulation. I suspect the latter will be the case. The actual path for Canada is something much more cynical. If this sounds extreme, it's worth remembering that Canada is not the US. It is not a republic, and it's only nominally a democracy, and its charter of rights has a "notwithstanding clause," which means a government can do whatever it wants. This regulation is part of a set of enabling acts for the Davos movement to form its own country using Canada as its first host. If that sounds like a conspiracy theory, we used to call it opposition criticism, but apparently that's not a thing anymore either. Discourse about policy in Canada is dead, and we are all but officially no longer a nation state, and so we are left to commenting on the realpolitik of our various administrators.
MattGaiser 5y ago
Hate speech is already a crime in Canada. It is unclear to me that this changes anything significantly.
pessimizer 5y ago
That means it's going to be very important for Canada to know who is writing what on the internet. Attempting anonymity on the internet may eventually become a crime akin to structuring.
vlovich123 5y ago
I see a lot of comments from Americans criticizing this (with what seems like a knee jerk reaction to the title only) without actually knowing anything about the history of this law, how hate speech is defined, how enforcement works, what the limits are, what is defensible, and what cases have been tried under this law. Hint: controversial ones go up to the Supreme Court so it’s not even that hard to find the boundary cases of the law that paint it in the worst light. I wish the discussion here was more interesting with people pointing out their problems with the law specifically rather than using vague arguments from first principles. Heck, one of the commenters implied this law makes Canada a shit country. Yet Canada has had a peaceful transition of power my entire lifetime and has tried to curb all extremist conduct in its society, whether Quebec separatists, white power bikers, or Islamic fundamentalists. I don’t recall hearing any stories indicating the RCMP or Canadian military has been infiltrated by white supremacists, whereas American law enforcement institutions at all levels seems to have this as a perennial problem. Now it’s totally fine to say “these are the trade offs and this is the society I want to live in” but it’s important to acknowledge what those trade offs are and important to consider that few people actually want to live in a society run by libertarians ruling everything from first principles. The first amendment already has limits (eg yelling fire in a crowded theater). These rules are about how to keep the discussion civil in public life and “hate” here means primarily speech that incites violence. It can also mean speaking disparagingly over any identifiable minority but that’s really a much narrower definition with smaller penalties, easier to defend, and fewer and lesser repercussions. I’m sure there are bad parts of the law but I would love to hear what the specifics are and how the law might be better constrained. Having lived in both places, I think America would benefit greatly from such a law. The challenge is that such constraints generally are non-starters within the framework of the US political and legal system because of the challenges in changing the first amendment. This has good and bad things and it’s entirely possible that US culture is not amenable to what works in Canada and that’s ok too. American laws that don’t work in Canadian culture wouldn’t be appreciated in Canada. For example, apologizing in a car accident in Canada used to be an admission of guilt which is something that was imported from America - that was reversed after massive popular protests against that.
aussieguy1234 5y ago
What you'll find is those who support hate speech will cry "free speech" when they're under threat of censorship. What they're not saying in the same sentence is they would love to silence the groups they are preaching hate speech against. Many would also like to silence any criticism of their own hate groups. If they ever made it into any real position of power, it's likely this would be attempted by them. Just look at any of the Facist regimes of the past where this actually happened. So they are in effect abusing free speech values when in fact it's really just their own speech they're interested in protecting.
lalaland1125 5y ago
How would this work for protected groups like religions where a particular ideology is essential to the group? For example, would it now be illegal to say that anti-LGBT churches are bad because they are homophobic?
- m-p-3 5y ago
  That's more like a voicing a disagreement or disdain than hate speech.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    What's the fundamental difference between hate speech and voicing disdain?
    - octopoc 5y ago
      6 months
SongOfSeikilos 5y ago
These are blasphemy laws by another name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law). Coming soon to a "liberal" democracy near you.
ThomPete 5y ago
Jordan Peterson predicted this which is one of the reasons he was so against Bill C-16
- newsbinator 5y ago
  If I remember correctly, he was mainly against "compelled speech": not when someone tells you not to say something a certain way, but when someone tells you you're obligated to say something a certain way. Was that the crux of it?
  - ThomPete 5y ago
    He was against it because of what it would lead to which is what we see here.
brailsafe 5y ago
This is very upsetting. The liberal party is giving me reasons to regret voting for them, but I suppose we'll see if they can pass it in a minority government. If the NDP also back it along with the conservatives, I may have no political alignment left.
- HNfriend234 5y ago
  My opinion is to abandon these "traditional" parties and go back to the fundamentals of what makes a society free and prosperous. Then vote based on that.
elongatedMusku 5y ago
Blasphemy laws are back better now. Will miss Canadian banter.
xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
The comments in this thread are incredibly disappointing. Hate speech is already a crime in Canada, as many others have pointed out. As someone who has experienced a lot of American and Canadian culture and lived in both places, I think this is A Good Thing overall. Canada is not America. The two countries have different histories and different charters. This isn't a slippery slope. For christ's sake it's a fine even. The article subtitle hits the nail on the head: > The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country. Hate speech is a pretty strong form of speech. It's typically not even telling racist jokes or making sexist remarks. It doesn't typically encompass civil debates or policy opinions. You're always free to speak your mind, you just shouldn't use those words to harm others. I've yet to hear any argument for why there should be a forum for hate speech, either in the physical world or on the internet.
- closeparen 5y ago
  The recognition of structural oppression in more and more places increases the likelihood that an opinion or argument in favor of some random thing, is also an opinion or argument in favor of the oppression of a marginalized group. And I think you will have a hard time claiming that that isn’t hate speech.
- lodovic 5y ago
  It is very easy to suppress inconvenient opinions by labelling them as controversial or hate speech. If you're only free to speak when nobody is listening, it's not freedom of speech.
  - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
    But that's not what is happening here. Hate speech charges are a serious crime and often see lengthy court time. If you cannot express your inconvenient opinion without being hateful towards or potentially harming a group of people, then that is a problem.
    - gameman144 5y ago
HNfriend234 5y ago
This is something that authoritarian regimes do to eliminate their political enemies through color of law. They create vague laws that only get applied to their political enemies. Really unfortunate to see this is the path Canada has gone.
fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
Freedom of speech is absolute. One cannot outlaw what one does not want to hear. If you want your freedom to speak you are required to let other people speak. It's really that simple. Hate does not go away by outlawing. It only makes martyrs of those impacted by the law. The only way to fight bigotry is with information and enlightenment. It is a fight that will never stop and there are no short cuts. One would have thought we, as a species, would have learned that by now.
- smt88 5y ago
  There is no society (existing or historical) where freedom of speech was absolute. There have always been consequences for some types of speech. The US conception of freedom of speech is basically, "Your ideological speech is safe from government censorship, but not from anyone else's." And even that has been unevenly supported by courts over time. So while your philosophy is interesting, it seems to have little to do with the way societies actually behave.
  - fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
    Consequences and freedom are two separate things don't you think? If you openly state that you hate a certain group of people that will have consequences. I still support your freedom to to so.
    - lm28469 5y ago
      That doesn't make much sense to me. You're not "free" to do X if X is punished by law. By that logic you're also free to kill your neighbor, you'll just suffer consequences.
      - fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
        We are talking about freedom to speak - not freedom to kill.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
benhoyt 5y ago
New Zealand is proposing a similar law change: https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-hatred/ https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-h... ... it's ostensibly in response to the Christchurch mosque shooting of 2019, but I'm very wary of the scope of this. And who defines the terms, including "hatred"? As a Kiwi, I intend to read the NZ legislation and comment (though the government has a habit of "taking submissions" and then ignoring them).
nikolay 5y ago
The political status quo is trying entrenching itself. Hate exists with or without speech. I'd rather know who hates me - it's that simple. People today are like ostriches - they'd rather stick their head in the sand and pretend everybody loves them, which is so far from the truth! Silencing voices only increases hatred.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I feel like there's a misunderstanding here. Hate speech isn't Anakin going "I hate you!!" or even "from my perspective the Jedi are evil." Hate speech is the Chancellor giving a speech in front of the senate that the Jedi are the greatest threat to the republic leading to widespread violence and discrimination against them across the galaxy.
  - nikolay 5y ago
    I mean "me" as my "protected class". I am a Christian and there's a lot of hatred against Christians these days. I also happen to be perceived as "white" although I don't identify as any race as races are unscientific and unfair. But people often hate white people online. So, I want to know who these people are, but now they will crawl back under the stones and I won't know who those bigots are. You don't fix one unfairness by replacing it with a new one!
Merlinux 5y ago
so this is freedom of speech in canada now. I feel offended, so you will pay 16 grand... Thats fucking fashism
fithisux 5y ago
So expressing distrust in election outcome can be taken as hate speech. Expressing suspicion of political corruption is hate speech. Expressing misdoing by police is hate speech. The parliament will be quieter than cemeteries.
dkobia 5y ago
I used to believe in the absoluteness of freedom of speech, especially with living in the United States, and that any attempts to regulate free speech were the slippery slope to regulating speech itself. However after witnessing firsthand, hate speech played out to its apex I am not so sure. The denial of other freedoms and the death and destruction it can leave in its wake leave me questioning this ideal.
AzzieElbab 5y ago
Would it be considered “hate speech” if I point out that the current cabinet is 100% incompetent largely due to Trudeau putting diversity goals above good governance?
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  the post above is a question, not a statement
RickJWagner 5y ago
A big surprising coming from Prime Minsiter Justin Trudeau, who is famous for attending parties in brownface.
dusted 5y ago
A slope of the slippery disposition, apply Norwegian sensibilities to it and whatever makes someone feel bad is punishable by fine.
bobthechef 5y ago
Perhaps "white" is not a group people should identify with. "Black" is meaningful in the US because it represents a distinct group of people who have a common culture, not because they have dark skin. The thousands of ethnic groups that live in subsaharan Africa aren't "black" in this cultural sense. Black Americans are a uniquely American ethnic group that was formed from broadly west African stock (i.e., various ethnic and tribal groups in that part of the continent). This is not to deny the racial characteristics, only that ethnicity, while it tracks race, is not strictly racial. Capital W "White", on the other hand, is not an ethnic group. The history of this term is a rather strange one. The US used to be a patchwork of ethnic European neighborhoods. Only later was the label "white" imposed on them over time, especially as they lost their ethnic character through assimilation. But because this imposed identity isn't a real ethnic identity, it doesn't really have any substance. So the content of that identity is supplied by whoever controls the meaning of that label. And because those who control it have determined that "white" means "racist", you will have adopted the identity of "racist". So what do you do? You take on that identity and then either do penance for how bad you are or you double down and "own" your supposed racism. Or you renounce or reject whiteness as your identity. Frankly, because it's not a real identity, the last option is the best it seems, but then what are you? In the US, once assimilation happens, your only remaining identity is religious identity; American identity itself is vacuous. Religious identity functions as a kind of substitute for ethnic identity (though I would argue not entirely). Even if you don't believe the faith of your ancestors, your cultural upbringing can still reflect that history in some way (this reminds me of how someone in Ireland might have asked "Yes, we know you're an atheist, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"; absurd in that religious identity is more fundamental than cultural identity, but still provides insight). Now with the waning of religious identity, American identity crises are flaring up again. This is a crisis of identity. This is why ideologies and subculture are attractive to people: they're (very mediocre) substitutes for ethnic and religious identity. We are in the middle of a religious war, a war for the soul of a society. Secular liberalism, itself a religion, has been demonstrated to be unworkable, not least because the very pluralism it purports to celebrate is its executioner. No social order tolerates a true pluralism of religion because then these other religions would not be subject to the constraints of the religion of the social order which is impractical. Here, liberal tolerance constrains the scope of valid religions according to its own norms. This liberalism lasted as long as it did because there was at least a very broad religious consensus which is now finished, but even then the situation was tense. Gutted of this consensus, the collapse of a hollow worldview is accelerated. Motus in fine velocior.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Some people identify disagreements as hate speech, so this will be interesting. I wonder if it will have a freezing effect on society that won’t be comfortable making decisions based on preference. E.g. most people don’t realize that politics is simply preference. Once you make a decision, you are preferring one outcome versus another, and it is therefore political.
nick_ 5y ago
ITT: Typical rampant status quo bias, social zero-sum thinking, and conflating the freedom to incite violence online in 2021 with the freedom to publicly criticize theocracies hundreds of years ago.
oriettaxx 5y ago
uh, scary, absolutely scary! who wrote this great quote: "if you do not get offended by the behavior of someboby, you do not live in a free country"
rurban 5y ago
I've read "punishable by fire". Guess I've read too much middle ages stories lately.
EdTsft 5y ago
As a Canadian, discussions like this threat make me slightly wishful of better options for national forums or censorship of foreign speech. Of all the comments decrying how horrible this is, how many of you are Canadian or at least familiar with the practice of limits to expression in Canada? At present I don't feel too strongly either way about this bill but I think by and large the judicial system has shown itself to be capable of reasonable enforcement of necessarily vaguely defined terms so I don't anticipate many/any outrageous enforcement actions. We are much less politically polarized than the US, especially the judicial system, so there is a smaller risk of the law being interpreted in extreme ways. That's not to say this is necessarily a good law, just that I don't find it as horrible as many of the comments are making out. I feel like our culture and values are at risk of being overwhelmed by the US's since the media and online spaces are so dominated by American voices. Apart from a few Canadian themed subreddits (and who knows how many of the comments are actually from Canadians) and maybe friend groups on Facebook, there aren't many online spaces for Canadians to talk. I don't know how to deal with this problem. I love forums like Hacker News and and any nation-specific space would be unlikely to be as good. I don't want the great firewall of China either (I wonder how the Canadian Shield will turn out [0]). So I don't know what the solution should be but threads like this do feel like a small part of the problem. [0]: https://www.cira.ca/cybersecurity-services/canadian-shield https://www.cira.ca/cybersecurity-services/canadian-shield
ostenning 5y ago
Why is it every day I read the news things just seem to get progressively worse? Is it just me or are we converging on absolute breakdown of civilisation? “Progress” is the new religion and it seems to be compiled with bandaids that solve no real problems.
snicker7 5y ago
Will wearing brown face be classified as hate speech? Or does the bill have a carve-out for LPC politicians?

245 points by elorant 5y ago

Canadian-American here. From what I've observed of Canada I'd expect the law will be narrowly defined and the penalties weak and rarely applied. Plus, the courts are slow as can be so I wouldn't expect an unleashing of prosecutions (though I realize this isn't a defense of a bad law). The US, in my experience, is far more severe in its criminal penalties for all kinds of things. In Canada, you wait years for trial (not in jail, you're out free) and then get a slap on the wrist.

joshrw 5y ago
The chilling effects it will have on free speech should not be discounted, though. Despite the patchy enforcement and relatively small fines, people will self-censor rather than risk saying anything "illegal".
- nick_ 5y ago
  That's... the point of the bill. People will stop seeing their participation in online hate-speech as a viable use of their time.

version_five 5y ago

"Hate Speech" is a super political term, and I would argue probably should have special protection at this point. It's not much of a leap to see this used to enforce current political orthodoxy. We already have laws about inciting to violence as I understand it, which is justifiable. This makes it an offence to "expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination".

errantmind 5y ago
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. These carve-outs in 'freedom of speech' will most definitely be abused if history is any guide.
- StandardFuture 5y ago
  They are being downvoted because there are a scarily growing number of people who believe that as long as the tyranny is "on their side" then it is ok. Or perhaps, the downvoters are just sociopaths?
- nl 5y ago
  > These carve-outs in 'freedom of speech' will most definitely be abused if history is any guide. Which history is that? Genuine question - I'm aware of places where speech is suppressed because the justice system is not independent of the political system. I'm aware of cases where speech is suppressed by the threat of being sued by private individuals. But where are the cases where hate-speech carve-outs have been abused in democracies?
  - neartheplain 5y ago
    Here in the United States, criticism of Israeli state policy as it affects Palenstians is often labeled antisemitic. Laws have been passed on that basis to proscribe the pro-Palestinean Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement [0]: >In the US, a large number of anti-BDS laws have been passed. As of 2020, 32 states have laws that prevent boycotts against Israel and a number of non-binding resolutions have been passed denouncing BDS. A majority of these have passed with strong bipartisan support. Two federal acts have been introduced, the 2017 Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the 2019 Combating BDS Act, both intended to deprive entities participating in boycotts of Israel of government contract work. In several states, these laws have been challenged on First Amendment grounds for violating citizens' freedom of speech. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Anti-BDS_laws_and_resolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sancti...
  - bccdee 5y ago
    There's a good overview of it here [1]. The author of the article has a lot of weird twitter opinions these days, but the incidents he's citing here are all real. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
StandardFuture 5y ago
> used to enforce current political orthodoxy. Which is a nice way of saying that this is the beginnings of a new authoritarian and totalitarian age. It should be very worrying to everyone to see speech be legally punished in the West. Slippery slopes do exist and this is one.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  this is probably a good point to quote the article "The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country." Contrary to popular (American) opinion laws regulating speech are in fact not a new and authoritarian invention but have existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries. To have a rational discussion about this when it comes to countries that don't happen to be the US, like in this case, it would probably be good to not act as if these laws were somehow conjured up out of nothing. The United Kingdom, probably having a claim to be one of the world's longest lasting liberal democracies, has laws concerning speech that in many cases go well beyond laws on continental Europe, so any discussion about speech in the Western (and even specifically Anglo) tradition probably should be had on that ground, rather than just vague pointing about slippery slopes.
  - StandardFuture 5y ago
    > but have in fact existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries Yes, and that is backwards, uncivilized, and philosophically unsophisticated. It is quite literally beneath where we should be as a modern human civilization. We defeat people saying things we disagree with with reason and not with fines. There are many reasons why people fled many countries in the West to America in 1800s-1900s. One of them was to escape crony and corrupt authoritarianism in Europe and elsewhere at the time.
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      So everyone who holds any restrictive position on speech, incompatible with your own is uncivilized and philosophically unsophisticated, as in the rest of the world? Civilizations thousands of years old are... uncivilized? See this is the supreme irony. You've turned freedom of speech into dogmatic faith. Ironically enough, no discourse is so dogmatic and blind and unable to question its own values as the American one. You can question everything, just not your own values on speech. It's all just platitudes about authoritarianism and slippery slopes and ironically enough unoriginal, replicated talking points.
icegreentea2 5y ago
Worth noting that Canada already considers hate speech a crime. For example (from wiki), the two most relevant existing laws would be: > Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred—makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.[15] > Section 319(2): Promoting hatred—makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15] What the planned legislation does is take the current working definition of hate speech (as set by Canada's Supreme Court) and put it into law, as well as (effectively) defining the relationship between online speech, and the public/private statements in the existing law.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Just reading what you are quoting, it sounds like 319(1) is not allowing for truth or intent as a defense. And it raises the question of what "likely to lead to a breach of the peace" means. Hindsight is one thing. But does the law imply a proverbial "reasonable person" standard in advance? Regarding 319(2), by saying "identifiable group", it sounds like it is covering all political groups or parties. Canadians are more polite, I know, but it seems like at this point 319(2) would cover virtually everything that passes for political discourse south of the border. I wouldn't assume these are enforced as written, or as they appear to me to be written. But if they were, they seem kind of extreme. Not because I'm insisting on the arbitrary standard of the US first amendment, but they do seem very broad.
  - icegreentea2 5y ago
    Heh, next section: > Section 319(3): Four defences—provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if: > the person establishes that the statements communicated were true; > 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; > the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or > in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.[15] As for the 'reasonable person' standard? I think that's how most laws as interpreted. For "identifiable group", the definition is: > any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. Certainly hate speech has the potential to be widely/broadly interpreted, and one could imagine scenarios where they would be problematic. I think broadly speaking, Canadians are aware of the potential of mis-use, but are generally "okay with it" based on the relative restraint that decades of different governments from different parties have shown. Which I think is why I am kind of weary of changes to the law and policy in general (though I really haven't processed this particular change yet. I think the inclusion of the Supreme Court definition is pretty benign, but not sure about the online carve outs...). I think that have this 'oh shit, this is a real baddy' recourse is useful, but it's validity and usefulness can only be sustained with restrained use. I am not particularly optimistic on this current government's ability to show restraint (and I broadly support their policies and platforms...).
ergot_vacation 5y ago
I hate mudflinging as much as the next guy, but how would someone even engage in politics at all without statements that could be described as detestation or vilification? Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them? Yes yes, there's "on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." That seems about as firm as a plastic bag blowing through a parking lot. I'm sure that category won't grow larger and larger until it's impossible to criticize the powerful or the status quo at all.
- Griffinsauce 5y ago
  I don't even know where to start with this. > Politics is saying mean things about the other side in support of your side. This is not the definition of politics, this is how it is being executed in some places, there are plenty of places where this is not the default method. > If you don't believe the other side to be fundamentally bad in some way, why are you fighting them? This only makes sense if Twitter is your only source of political news/opinion. You may think the other group is swell but have different opinions on how to get to the same end goal. You may have a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like or what our current one looks like (ie. different perspectives) . None of that includes "fundamentally bad". See: all parties that have splintered off from a common one. They are still in the same corner but have adjusted their views, strategy or goals. They don't suddenly think their earlier compatriots are evil incarnate.
  - whiddershins 5y ago
    Interestingly, I think an argument could be made that ‘having a disagreement on what an ideal world looks like’ is equivalent to thinking the other is evil or at minimum immoral. Willing to be told I’m wrong.
    - jsmeaton 5y ago
      Disconnect the statement from actual politics and think about the concept in a more local setting. Here's a somewhat contrived example. There are two engineers in your company trying to work out the best way to reduce the rate of bugs being introduced into a system. One of them is advocating for pair programming, and the other is advocating for a dedicated testing team. Both are trying to convince the other engineers that their method is best. They may argue in good faith. They may resort to calling the other silly names. This is politics on a local scale. There's nothing to imply that the other side is evil, immoral, or even wrong. The fact that current democratic politics has devolved into mudslinging isn't an inherent fact of politics - it just seems to be an effective way to win these days.
Griffinsauce 5y ago
> "Hate Speech" is a super political term Laws are political. We seem to have completely lost the meaning of this word. Did you mean something like "controversial"?
justbored123 5y ago
You don't seem to understand the basic concept of division of power. The law is enforced by the judicial branch based on the written law + legal precedents on an impartial manner, not by the "current political orthodoxy". If you question the judicial branch impartiality about this matter, you question the judicial branch itself because there is no reason to trust their impartial judgment in any other matter. If that is the case, I suggest that you make and argument for anarchy instead of this one.

potiuper 5y ago

Have to rewrite history first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada

akomtu 5y ago

This "hate speech" is the modern heresy. The trick is tired, but still works surprisingly well: invent a gibberish buzzword, e.g. "truth denialism", pass a law to ban the buzzword without specifying what the buzzword means, generously extend the meaning of the buzzword and label anyone you disagree with a "truth denialist". It's a form of hijacking democratic societies.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
This is literally a south park episode when Randy says the n word on wheel of fortune. But I agree wholeheartedly. Leftism has become a religion at this point. Almost like a pagan religion where pandering priests with political power grant some winey peasant a right to claim something antithetical to democratic societies for an arbitrary reason.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
JasonFruit 5y ago
For a contemporary example, "white supremacist domestic terrorism".

egberts1 5y ago

Blame 🇨🇦 Canada!

recursivedoubts 5y ago

the worse, the better

swader999 5y ago

Be interesting to see what they would say in this new law about someone wearing black face like our prime minister has more times than he can remember.

verytrivial 5y ago

"[Hate speech] threatens the safety and well-being of its targets." The UK is in the throes of trying to define what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society. The problem seems to stem from the parameters of 'harm' being defined almost entirely by the victim. There are claims that arguments against certain idiologies "deny the existence" of groups, and further that expressing these idea seems to lead directly to self harm and suicides. So, "speech that causes harm" and makes people feel hated. Bingo: 'hate speech'. But what happens when there isn't any hate or targeted 'detesting' going on? (Or good data on suicides for that matter.) It's open for abuse by a mob. Not a good path to head down in a pluralist, liberal society IMHO. It's strange to me that at least within nations, the previously war-starting disagreements about the finer details of the Abrahamic religions seem to have chosen different orbits within society, politely nod to each other and know no good will come from trying to lock horns. The kids on Twitter now have apparently equally strongly held beliefs about other stuff but are utterly gob-smacked that other people won't agree with them even though they KNOW THEY'RE RIGHT.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
> what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court stated that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case.
- Causality1 5y ago
  I wish people would quit trotting that out. Shouting "fire" in a theater is perfectly legal.
  - edoceo 5y ago
    Please try and tell me/us how it works out. I'm not willing to try. And, here's the big W on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... "speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true."

S_A_P 5y ago

Today’s dissent is tomorrow’s hate speech. We are sliding down the slippery slope.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Except how many people now upset at this we’re glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump? It’s really easy to say you defend things when it’s theory and not “a bad man who says mean things”. It is a slippery slope, and we’re already well down it. Too many people continuing to cheer it along until it’ll be too late.
- loceng 5y ago
  Those are private platforms and not government doing the moderating.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Right, yes, and this is totally unrelated even when you have one campaign begging FAANG to censor a political rival before the election… https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-biden-emails/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-bid... (Notice CNN’s take that it’s bad Facebook didn’t do more, not that this was a political kneecapping… still, CNN accidentally did a journalism) It’s a private company! Build your own Facebook! (Nevermind that Google with their nearly infinite money tried and spectacularly failed). Ignoring the reality it’s a monopoly. The spirit of free speech extends past the US Government. If it’s not illegal it shouldn’t be censored by what is effectively a common carrier, this is why everyone is in a rush to expand what is illegal.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    "Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocence is only required in a legal context, not a social context. You see a similar pattern with free speech: people try to defend private censorship by saying that the First Amendment only applies to the government, while ignoring the fact that the amendment is just a legal codification of the general principle of free speech. It's a poor defense in free speech cases and it's a poor defense here, but I'm sure that's the defense you would hear. It's shocking that so many are unable to grasp the values that generate cultural mores, virtues, and customary law. As you note, the principle of free speech is codified in law. The underlying value is truth. Without the free exchange of ideas humankind cannot arrive at truth. The same with the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty, without which we cannot arrive at justice, which, in turn, requires ascertaining truth. The practices of free speech and due process are both manifestations of truth-seeking as the virtue by which we find truth. The scientific method is also a codification of truth seeking methods. These people are without principle and seek only power. Truth is their enemy. Evil defined."

phendrenad2 5y ago

Can't wait to get extradited to Canada for insulting someone's mum online!

freeslave 5y ago

Despite all the hand-wringing in this thread, Canada has had anti-hate speech laws for some time now and our society has yet to collapse. https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-restriction-hate-speech-canada https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-rest... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

undfg 5y ago
China is also far from collapsing.
- krrrh 5y ago
  You’re probably right, but most people also thought this about the Soviet Union in the eighties.
headsoup 5y ago
All good then so long as no one weaponises them in future...
mastazi 5y ago
"Not collapsing" is not the optimum we should aim for.
- rezendi 5y ago
  No, we should at least aim for the ability to recognize understated sarcasm.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

legostormtroopr 5y ago

The think that always worries me about "hate speech" is the lack of clarity of definition. If you said 'Kill all X' where X is any protected group you would almost certainly fall afoul of hate speech regulation. By all metrics "Kill all X" is online vilification against a group of people because of superficial characteristics. Yet for some reason "Kill all Men" is totally acceptable in online discourse. Because of the lack of punishment, anyone against whom "Kill all X" is acceptable finds themselves opposing hate speech regulation - as for them it is useless and does nothing to protect them. Secondly, because of the lack of consistent (and biased) enforcement of hate speech rules, everyone should be concerned about if and when hate speech against them goes from being protected to normalised.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
I would honestly like to see that challenged in court. If the Canadians truly are vying for egalitarianism, anybody saying that should be fined. If they arent, then we know its just a bootlicking law.
- ryanmentor 5y ago
  Which groups in Canada are known for challenging laws this way?
travoc 5y ago
We’ll know it when we see it.
jimmygrapes 5y ago
kill all meat eaters kill all rapists kill all terrorists kill all pedophiles kill all polluters kill all racist kill all.... hm. at which point does this go from rhetoric hyperbole to common sense to punished by law
inglor_cz 5y ago
"The think that always worries me about "hate speech" is the lack of clarity of definition." That is probably a bug, not a feature. Once something as nebulous as an emotion is being punished, people will stay away from controversial topics just in case.

pyuser583 5y ago

Ok so how is Trudeau Jr. going deal with the fact the Internet is international? Is he going to censor messages from other countries? Will Canadians be allowed to read hate speech published in another country? It seems it only applies to producing it. But the problem he’s describing isn’t cause by the production of hate speech, but it’s consumption.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

busymom0 5y ago

The "war on drugs" was very effective. So lets do this to speech and guns and everything political. The "porn" ban worked out great for my home country too... Someone with multiple black and brown face incidents legislating "hate speech" is ironic.

JetAlone 5y ago
We'll have to run speakeasies that fulfill the term's prima facia interpretation.
seattle_spring 5y ago
What an odd straw man. The war on drugs failed because it unrealistically tried to ban all drugs. No one is trying to ban all guns, and no one is trying to ban "all things political." If your entire belief system is lumped in with "hate speech," it's a good signal to reexamine your alignment over crying censorship.
- busymom0 5y ago
  > If your entire belief system is lumped in with "hate speech," This ad hominem and odd straw man projection is exactly proving my point. Keep pushing it further until the pendulum swings back and the censorship you are pushing for comes back to bite back in the behind. And I won't be there to defend then. Just yesterday we had a trending post on HN about the censorship of Palestinians. The Palestinians are getting censored under the mask of "anti-semitism" and the Israelis / christians are getting censored under the mask of "islamaphobic". Women not wanting biological men competing in women's sports are being censored under the mask of "transphobic".
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    > The Palestinians are getting censored under the mask of "anti-semitism" and the Israelis / christians are getting censored under the mask of "islamaphobic" Are you comparing Palestinian life under apartheid to Christians getting their "all Muslims are terrorists" Facebook posts deleted?

Animats 5y ago

This is bad. The bill does not define "hate speech"; that's left for later administrative determination. All we have so far is “expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” Combining "detestation" ("I don't like you") with vilification ("You're evil") is a concern. The first is legitimate opinion. The second is defamation. For which truth is a defense under US law. The committee report that fed into this bill [1] is scary. "Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech."[2] This is at least in part about suppressing political speech on certain issues. YMCA of Canada proposed a definition: "integrate an intersectional gender equity lens and consider the gendered impacts of anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Xenophobia in any definition of “hate” and “online hate”". Think of trying to defend against a claim of that in court. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs proposed the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the one that includes some kinds of criticism of the Israeli government.[3] This isn't classic hate speech, intended to incite people to violence. Such as "Hang Mike Pence". This is far, far broader. [1] https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-29/page-57#11 https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report... [2] https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do?q=whatcott https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/inde... [3] https://www.jta.org/2021/01/15/global/the-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism-and-why-people-are-fighting-over-it-explained https://www.jta.org/2021/01/15/global/the-ihra-definition-of...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
neartheplain 5y ago
I suspect anti-white speech would not be considered hate speech according to the YMCA of Canada. An "intersectional equity lens" often implies the redefinition as racism as racism-plus-power, viewing all whites as empowered and all non-whites as oppressed. We know anti-white speech can and does incite violence, as it did last week in Daytona Beach: https://twitter.com/gwupoe/status/1409137548899893251 https://twitter.com/gwupoe/status/1409137548899893251 It can also incite white identity politics, which to me is the much bigger problem caused by this sort of law.

jjmorrison 5y ago

Terrifying...

Griffinsauce 5y ago
It's quite hilarious to see this sentiment from all the Americans in the comments while the actual Canadians seem to mostly say "this was already the case?" and people from other countries not being impressed at all. Yes, laws around speech should be well designed, but the entire premise of them seems to already induce this pearl-clutching. That's quite puzzling to me, especially since the US has lax laws around speech, but definitely has them, it's not free.
- jjmorrison 5y ago
  I'm Canadian FWIW.

spoonjim 5y ago

I got banned from Reddit for stating that “all murderers should be executed,” which is literally a policy position. I think online free speech is not long for this world which will leave the voting booth the only remaining anonymous forum. I expect many more “how the %%*$& did THEY win?!” elections.

jszymborski 5y ago
Nothing is stopping you from hosting your own website, publishing your own leaflets, making your own podcast, etc... stating those views. Frankly this has little to do with the parent post.
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  Every modern attempt at starting competing services to major online forums has met with: -A firestorm of slander from media outlets controlled by competitors. -Cartel-style harassment and denial of basic services required to run the site, hosting, financial, etc, again, by competitors. Competition is not a solution when the game is rigged. People literally are "stopping you," and they are some very powerful, influential people at that.

swayvil 5y ago

"hate speech" is essentially synonymous with "wrong think". Let's all keep that in mind. Do you really want a consortium of oligarchs telling you what you can say?

HNfriend234 5y ago
This law is simply guised as fighting "hate speech" but in practice it is designed to eliminate political enemies.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

prvc 5y ago

>“Hate speech directly contradicts the values underlying freedom of expression and our Charter of Rights,” Lametti said. “It threatens the safety and well-being of its targets. It silences and intimidates, especially when the target is a vulnerable person or community. When hate speech spreads, its victims lose their freedom to participate in civil society online.” Just want to note the extraordinary audacity of this statement: reversing the adversely affected parties, while posturing as an affirmation of the very values it is attempting to undermine.

JasonFruit 5y ago
It is an audaciously wrongheaded statement. It puts a veneer of concern for the oppressed and their rights over a violation of the rights of those this law intends to oppress.

mgbmtl 5y ago

I don't understand, hate speech online is already illegal. It seems like they are shifting further the responsibility of hate speech to individual, rather than the social media platforms that encourage it with rage-bait? "The proposal would punish social media users who broke the law but exempt social media companies that host such content from fines."

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
> hate speech online is already illegal Which country/law are you talking about?
- mgbmtl 5y ago
  Canada (the article being about Canada). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

jollybean 5y ago

I think the issue boils down to the definition, and how the courts will interpret it. The definition is far too vague, and the courts will do as they please with it. There will be some weird fallout over this.

caseysoftware 5y ago
No, the real place to leverage this is before the courts. I'm not sure of how it works in Canada but in the US, the District Attorney can choose which cases to pursue. A savvy DA (or the Canadian equivalent) can pick cases that fit the public's current notion of "hate speech" and quietly pass on the ones who don't. Therefore, setting precedents for later cases. Judges can't rule in cases which aren't presented.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > can pick cases that fit the public's current notion of "hate speech" and quietly pass on the ones who don't. Prosecutorial discretion needs to be considered a crime against humanity.

WalterBright 5y ago

People burned at the stake for heresy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heret...

HNfriend234 5y ago
Still happening today. Except we call it cancel culture instead.

motohagiography 5y ago

The rationale behind this regulation is insincere, and in my view, it is an expression of weakness and fear by an out of touch governing class who know they have overstepped their remit, however, the effects could be interesting. The interesting effects will be toward one of two poles: either the regulation will relieve conservative forums (if they even exist anymore) of the burden of dealing with people who abuse their tolerance with extreme behavior, which will improve their conversations and make the discourse of those forums clearer - or - the regulations will be used by a provisional group of party affiliated trolls who will flood opposition sites with "hate speech," to get them "investigated" and knocked offline using this as a pretext at key moments under the regulation. I suspect the latter will be the case. The actual path for Canada is something much more cynical. If this sounds extreme, it's worth remembering that Canada is not the US. It is not a republic, and it's only nominally a democracy, and its charter of rights has a "notwithstanding clause," which means a government can do whatever it wants. This regulation is part of a set of enabling acts for the Davos movement to form its own country using Canada as its first host. If that sounds like a conspiracy theory, we used to call it opposition criticism, but apparently that's not a thing anymore either. Discourse about policy in Canada is dead, and we are all but officially no longer a nation state, and so we are left to commenting on the realpolitik of our various administrators.

MattGaiser 5y ago

Hate speech is already a crime in Canada. It is unclear to me that this changes anything significantly.

pessimizer 5y ago

That means it's going to be very important for Canada to know who is writing what on the internet. Attempting anonymity on the internet may eventually become a crime akin to structuring.

vlovich123 5y ago

I see a lot of comments from Americans criticizing this (with what seems like a knee jerk reaction to the title only) without actually knowing anything about the history of this law, how hate speech is defined, how enforcement works, what the limits are, what is defensible, and what cases have been tried under this law. Hint: controversial ones go up to the Supreme Court so it’s not even that hard to find the boundary cases of the law that paint it in the worst light. I wish the discussion here was more interesting with people pointing out their problems with the law specifically rather than using vague arguments from first principles. Heck, one of the commenters implied this law makes Canada a shit country. Yet Canada has had a peaceful transition of power my entire lifetime and has tried to curb all extremist conduct in its society, whether Quebec separatists, white power bikers, or Islamic fundamentalists. I don’t recall hearing any stories indicating the RCMP or Canadian military has been infiltrated by white supremacists, whereas American law enforcement institutions at all levels seems to have this as a perennial problem. Now it’s totally fine to say “these are the trade offs and this is the society I want to live in” but it’s important to acknowledge what those trade offs are and important to consider that few people actually want to live in a society run by libertarians ruling everything from first principles. The first amendment already has limits (eg yelling fire in a crowded theater). These rules are about how to keep the discussion civil in public life and “hate” here means primarily speech that incites violence. It can also mean speaking disparagingly over any identifiable minority but that’s really a much narrower definition with smaller penalties, easier to defend, and fewer and lesser repercussions. I’m sure there are bad parts of the law but I would love to hear what the specifics are and how the law might be better constrained. Having lived in both places, I think America would benefit greatly from such a law. The challenge is that such constraints generally are non-starters within the framework of the US political and legal system because of the challenges in changing the first amendment. This has good and bad things and it’s entirely possible that US culture is not amenable to what works in Canada and that’s ok too. American laws that don’t work in Canadian culture wouldn’t be appreciated in Canada. For example, apologizing in a car accident in Canada used to be an admission of guilt which is something that was imported from America - that was reversed after massive popular protests against that.

aussieguy1234 5y ago

What you'll find is those who support hate speech will cry "free speech" when they're under threat of censorship. What they're not saying in the same sentence is they would love to silence the groups they are preaching hate speech against. Many would also like to silence any criticism of their own hate groups. If they ever made it into any real position of power, it's likely this would be attempted by them. Just look at any of the Facist regimes of the past where this actually happened. So they are in effect abusing free speech values when in fact it's really just their own speech they're interested in protecting.

lalaland1125 5y ago

How would this work for protected groups like religions where a particular ideology is essential to the group? For example, would it now be illegal to say that anti-LGBT churches are bad because they are homophobic?

m-p-3 5y ago
That's more like a voicing a disagreement or disdain than hate speech.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  What's the fundamental difference between hate speech and voicing disdain?
  - octopoc 5y ago
    6 months

SongOfSeikilos 5y ago

These are blasphemy laws by another name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law). Coming soon to a "liberal" democracy near you.

ThomPete 5y ago

Jordan Peterson predicted this which is one of the reasons he was so against Bill C-16

newsbinator 5y ago
If I remember correctly, he was mainly against "compelled speech": not when someone tells you not to say something a certain way, but when someone tells you you're obligated to say something a certain way. Was that the crux of it?
- ThomPete 5y ago
  He was against it because of what it would lead to which is what we see here.

brailsafe 5y ago

This is very upsetting. The liberal party is giving me reasons to regret voting for them, but I suppose we'll see if they can pass it in a minority government. If the NDP also back it along with the conservatives, I may have no political alignment left.

HNfriend234 5y ago
My opinion is to abandon these "traditional" parties and go back to the fundamentals of what makes a society free and prosperous. Then vote based on that.

elongatedMusku 5y ago

Blasphemy laws are back better now. Will miss Canadian banter.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago

The comments in this thread are incredibly disappointing. Hate speech is already a crime in Canada, as many others have pointed out. As someone who has experienced a lot of American and Canadian culture and lived in both places, I think this is A Good Thing overall. Canada is not America. The two countries have different histories and different charters. This isn't a slippery slope. For christ's sake it's a fine even. The article subtitle hits the nail on the head: > The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country. Hate speech is a pretty strong form of speech. It's typically not even telling racist jokes or making sexist remarks. It doesn't typically encompass civil debates or policy opinions. You're always free to speak your mind, you just shouldn't use those words to harm others. I've yet to hear any argument for why there should be a forum for hate speech, either in the physical world or on the internet.

closeparen 5y ago
The recognition of structural oppression in more and more places increases the likelihood that an opinion or argument in favor of some random thing, is also an opinion or argument in favor of the oppression of a marginalized group. And I think you will have a hard time claiming that that isn’t hate speech.
lodovic 5y ago
It is very easy to suppress inconvenient opinions by labelling them as controversial or hate speech. If you're only free to speak when nobody is listening, it's not freedom of speech.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  But that's not what is happening here. Hate speech charges are a serious crime and often see lengthy court time. If you cannot express your inconvenient opinion without being hateful towards or potentially harming a group of people, then that is a problem.
  - gameman144 5y ago

HNfriend234 5y ago

This is something that authoritarian regimes do to eliminate their political enemies through color of law. They create vague laws that only get applied to their political enemies. Really unfortunate to see this is the path Canada has gone.

fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago

Freedom of speech is absolute. One cannot outlaw what one does not want to hear. If you want your freedom to speak you are required to let other people speak. It's really that simple. Hate does not go away by outlawing. It only makes martyrs of those impacted by the law. The only way to fight bigotry is with information and enlightenment. It is a fight that will never stop and there are no short cuts. One would have thought we, as a species, would have learned that by now.

smt88 5y ago
There is no society (existing or historical) where freedom of speech was absolute. There have always been consequences for some types of speech. The US conception of freedom of speech is basically, "Your ideological speech is safe from government censorship, but not from anyone else's." And even that has been unevenly supported by courts over time. So while your philosophy is interesting, it seems to have little to do with the way societies actually behave.
- fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
  Consequences and freedom are two separate things don't you think? If you openly state that you hate a certain group of people that will have consequences. I still support your freedom to to so.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    That doesn't make much sense to me. You're not "free" to do X if X is punished by law. By that logic you're also free to kill your neighbor, you'll just suffer consequences.
    - fghfghfghfghfgh 5y ago
      We are talking about freedom to speak - not freedom to kill.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

benhoyt 5y ago

New Zealand is proposing a similar law change: https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-hatred/ https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-h... ... it's ostensibly in response to the Christchurch mosque shooting of 2019, but I'm very wary of the scope of this. And who defines the terms, including "hatred"? As a Kiwi, I intend to read the NZ legislation and comment (though the government has a habit of "taking submissions" and then ignoring them).

nikolay 5y ago

The political status quo is trying entrenching itself. Hate exists with or without speech. I'd rather know who hates me - it's that simple. People today are like ostriches - they'd rather stick their head in the sand and pretend everybody loves them, which is so far from the truth! Silencing voices only increases hatred.

Spivak 5y ago
I feel like there's a misunderstanding here. Hate speech isn't Anakin going "I hate you!!" or even "from my perspective the Jedi are evil." Hate speech is the Chancellor giving a speech in front of the senate that the Jedi are the greatest threat to the republic leading to widespread violence and discrimination against them across the galaxy.
- nikolay 5y ago
  I mean "me" as my "protected class". I am a Christian and there's a lot of hatred against Christians these days. I also happen to be perceived as "white" although I don't identify as any race as races are unscientific and unfair. But people often hate white people online. So, I want to know who these people are, but now they will crawl back under the stones and I won't know who those bigots are. You don't fix one unfairness by replacing it with a new one!

Merlinux 5y ago

so this is freedom of speech in canada now. I feel offended, so you will pay 16 grand... Thats fucking fashism

fithisux 5y ago

So expressing distrust in election outcome can be taken as hate speech. Expressing suspicion of political corruption is hate speech. Expressing misdoing by police is hate speech. The parliament will be quieter than cemeteries.

dkobia 5y ago

I used to believe in the absoluteness of freedom of speech, especially with living in the United States, and that any attempts to regulate free speech were the slippery slope to regulating speech itself. However after witnessing firsthand, hate speech played out to its apex I am not so sure. The denial of other freedoms and the death and destruction it can leave in its wake leave me questioning this ideal.

AzzieElbab 5y ago

Would it be considered “hate speech” if I point out that the current cabinet is 100% incompetent largely due to Trudeau putting diversity goals above good governance?

AzzieElbab 5y ago
the post above is a question, not a statement

RickJWagner 5y ago

A big surprising coming from Prime Minsiter Justin Trudeau, who is famous for attending parties in brownface.

dusted 5y ago

A slope of the slippery disposition, apply Norwegian sensibilities to it and whatever makes someone feel bad is punishable by fine.

bobthechef 5y ago

Perhaps "white" is not a group people should identify with. "Black" is meaningful in the US because it represents a distinct group of people who have a common culture, not because they have dark skin. The thousands of ethnic groups that live in subsaharan Africa aren't "black" in this cultural sense. Black Americans are a uniquely American ethnic group that was formed from broadly west African stock (i.e., various ethnic and tribal groups in that part of the continent). This is not to deny the racial characteristics, only that ethnicity, while it tracks race, is not strictly racial. Capital W "White", on the other hand, is not an ethnic group. The history of this term is a rather strange one. The US used to be a patchwork of ethnic European neighborhoods. Only later was the label "white" imposed on them over time, especially as they lost their ethnic character through assimilation. But because this imposed identity isn't a real ethnic identity, it doesn't really have any substance. So the content of that identity is supplied by whoever controls the meaning of that label. And because those who control it have determined that "white" means "racist", you will have adopted the identity of "racist". So what do you do? You take on that identity and then either do penance for how bad you are or you double down and "own" your supposed racism. Or you renounce or reject whiteness as your identity. Frankly, because it's not a real identity, the last option is the best it seems, but then what are you? In the US, once assimilation happens, your only remaining identity is religious identity; American identity itself is vacuous. Religious identity functions as a kind of substitute for ethnic identity (though I would argue not entirely). Even if you don't believe the faith of your ancestors, your cultural upbringing can still reflect that history in some way (this reminds me of how someone in Ireland might have asked "Yes, we know you're an atheist, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"; absurd in that religious identity is more fundamental than cultural identity, but still provides insight). Now with the waning of religious identity, American identity crises are flaring up again. This is a crisis of identity. This is why ideologies and subculture are attractive to people: they're (very mediocre) substitutes for ethnic and religious identity. We are in the middle of a religious war, a war for the soul of a society. Secular liberalism, itself a religion, has been demonstrated to be unworkable, not least because the very pluralism it purports to celebrate is its executioner. No social order tolerates a true pluralism of religion because then these other religions would not be subject to the constraints of the religion of the social order which is impractical. Here, liberal tolerance constrains the scope of valid religions according to its own norms. This liberalism lasted as long as it did because there was at least a very broad religious consensus which is now finished, but even then the situation was tense. Gutted of this consensus, the collapse of a hollow worldview is accelerated. Motus in fine velocior.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Some people identify disagreements as hate speech, so this will be interesting. I wonder if it will have a freezing effect on society that won’t be comfortable making decisions based on preference. E.g. most people don’t realize that politics is simply preference. Once you make a decision, you are preferring one outcome versus another, and it is therefore political.

nick_ 5y ago

ITT: Typical rampant status quo bias, social zero-sum thinking, and conflating the freedom to incite violence online in 2021 with the freedom to publicly criticize theocracies hundreds of years ago.

oriettaxx 5y ago

uh, scary, absolutely scary! who wrote this great quote: "if you do not get offended by the behavior of someboby, you do not live in a free country"

rurban 5y ago

I've read "punishable by fire". Guess I've read too much middle ages stories lately.

EdTsft 5y ago

As a Canadian, discussions like this threat make me slightly wishful of better options for national forums or censorship of foreign speech. Of all the comments decrying how horrible this is, how many of you are Canadian or at least familiar with the practice of limits to expression in Canada? At present I don't feel too strongly either way about this bill but I think by and large the judicial system has shown itself to be capable of reasonable enforcement of necessarily vaguely defined terms so I don't anticipate many/any outrageous enforcement actions. We are much less politically polarized than the US, especially the judicial system, so there is a smaller risk of the law being interpreted in extreme ways. That's not to say this is necessarily a good law, just that I don't find it as horrible as many of the comments are making out. I feel like our culture and values are at risk of being overwhelmed by the US's since the media and online spaces are so dominated by American voices. Apart from a few Canadian themed subreddits (and who knows how many of the comments are actually from Canadians) and maybe friend groups on Facebook, there aren't many online spaces for Canadians to talk. I don't know how to deal with this problem. I love forums like Hacker News and and any nation-specific space would be unlikely to be as good. I don't want the great firewall of China either (I wonder how the Canadian Shield will turn out [0]). So I don't know what the solution should be but threads like this do feel like a small part of the problem. [0]: https://www.cira.ca/cybersecurity-services/canadian-shield https://www.cira.ca/cybersecurity-services/canadian-shield

ostenning 5y ago

Why is it every day I read the news things just seem to get progressively worse? Is it just me or are we converging on absolute breakdown of civilisation? “Progress” is the new religion and it seems to be compiled with bandaids that solve no real problems.

snicker7 5y ago

Will wearing brown face be classified as hate speech? Or does the bill have a carve-out for LPC politicians?