2 ms·

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

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...).

perl4ever 5y ago
If I'm reading this correctly, an opinion about, say, regulating marriage could be permitted if it was based on a "religious text", but if not, or the authorities didn't recognize the religion/text (e.g. Pastafarians or something) then the same opinion might not be allowed. It still seems to me open to interpretation whether promoting hate of political parties is permissible. A political party can be considered a "mental disability" - maybe that seems silly in this context, but it isn't uncommon for partisans to literally say that the party they dislike is a mental illness or made up of the mentally ill. Furthermore, it seems clear from the list that "identifiable" doesn't necessarily mean visually identifiable. So the concept they had in mind eludes me. In legal writing, sometimes they will list things and say it is "not intended to be exhaustive". So I wonder if the list of identifiable groups is or not. (And about the "reasonable person standard" - since it is explicitly written into law in some cases, and it has a name, I would expect it isn't always implicit. I am not a lawyer, and realize civil, criminal, American, and other law isn't the same, but the "eggshell rule" seems like an example of how and why the expectation of a "reasonable person" might not be considered an appropriate standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull)

perl4ever 5y ago

If I'm reading this correctly, an opinion about, say, regulating marriage could be permitted if it was based on a "religious text", but if not, or the authorities didn't recognize the religion/text (e.g. Pastafarians or something) then the same opinion might not be allowed. It still seems to me open to interpretation whether promoting hate of political parties is permissible. A political party can be considered a "mental disability" - maybe that seems silly in this context, but it isn't uncommon for partisans to literally say that the party they dislike is a mental illness or made up of the mentally ill. Furthermore, it seems clear from the list that "identifiable" doesn't necessarily mean visually identifiable. So the concept they had in mind eludes me. In legal writing, sometimes they will list things and say it is "not intended to be exhaustive". So I wonder if the list of identifiable groups is or not. (And about the "reasonable person standard" - since it is explicitly written into law in some cases, and it has a name, I would expect it isn't always implicit. I am not a lawyer, and realize civil, criminal, American, and other law isn't the same, but the "eggshell rule" seems like an example of how and why the expectation of a "reasonable person" might not be considered an appropriate standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull)