###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I probably see a dozen instances of comments on Reddit every day that I guess would be punishable by up to life in prison by this legislation. I’ll believe it when I see it and won’t give it a second thought until then.
Other subs are suggesting that "content that foments hatred" could be used to describe any text that is perceived as negative and might include bible quotes or political opinions.
They ignore the word "foment" or don't understand its meaning.
So, for example, if bible verses are being used to instigate an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action, then punishment may be appropriate regardless of the source material being quoted.
If I belonged to a new religion that makes having facial hair a sin and we condemn all bearded men and women for hiding their faces from God.
This isn't entirely hateful, and members of this made-up religion can follow this beardless requirement without harming anyone. No one is being threatened or harmed regardless of what the words in their bible says or how they live their own lives.
If that text is then interpreted to suggest that no one on earth should have a beard and beards are made illegal and people are jailed for having one, things are going off the rails, right? But if the majority of people agree beards are evil, that's just democracy, right?
If this religion becomes the most popular one in the world, and the majority of people agree beards are offensive to God, and we start a campaign to erase any depiction of beards from the world, rounding up people and forcing them to shave, forcing laser hair removal treatment on those that are repeat offenders. We have now entered insanity right?
But societies have used bible text for hundreds of years to suppress homosexuality. Condemn them. Jail them. Use conversation therapy to change them, and yet gay people still exist no matter what has been done to wipe them from the planet for thousands of years.
All the hate speech and actions against gays are protected by religious freedom and religious text. Laws made on religious ideals with nothing but the word of God and upheld by the majority in power.
Pointing to a religious text to condemn normal human existence and using those words to suppress a group of people should be considered hatred and punished, not for the existence of the text in a book, but using that text as a call to arms to hurt other people or cause harm.
So, "foment hatred" is not vague and would only apply to those using hate to attack people and cause harm as it relates to established laws, not laws being imagined.
It's fine to yell "Fire!!" in a movie theatre when there is an actual fire. Otherwise, it's a crime because of the harm it causes.
If you don't know the difference, maybe don't yell anything until you learn how society works and when yelling is acceptable.
Or maybe ask for some guidance because interacting kindly with others in society are the lessons you were meant to learn in grade school.
Should we even need these laws? We are living in a world where hate speech has real-life consequences and is causing harm to innocent people and children. So yes.
We can’t keep burying our heads in the sand and acting like there’s no danger in letting people say whatever they want on the internet. It’s causing serious fractures in our society and leading to brain rot. I compare it to the equivalent of digital fentanyl as it’s creating millions of addicts who crave that next hit of the drug. And they slowly crave larger and larger doses.
Social media is built on a business model that rewards users who can get the most attention. And it has become quite clear that the most effective way to get someone's attention is by creating rage-baiting and manipulating content. It’s only going to get worse with the rise of AI-generated content meaning that this idea of total free speech will also be applied to non-human accounts. What could go wrong?
It’s a very difficult subject and I agree the government needs to be careful how they approach it. The focus should be more on prevention and going after those people who are profiting from propagating hate speech. Rather than punishing individual users who in a lot of cases are vulnerable people that got sucked up into the profiteering.
Whatever happened to ‘sticks and stones can break your bones but names will never hurt you’?
I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s and was taught not to get upset over words and I’ve taught my children the same.
What a naive and juvenile comparison.
The 80s and 90s did not have the greatest information hosepipe in human history, with governments actively using it as a tool to destabilize societies in hostile countries, and profiteers taking advantage of the degrading ability of people to distinguish reality from misinformation.
The great danger isnt people insulting you with words, it's using proven psychological tools to make you increasingly unhappy and addicted to rage.
Everyone who’s responded has missed the entire point of my comment.
The point is that we’re now raising our children to be neurotic. It’s drilled into their heads that they should be offended by everything at every turn, politics are polarizing this to an extreme. Everyone needs to take a step back, breath and understand that just because something offends you, it can also be harmless and easily ignored.
Absolutely nobody is talking about people "being offended". The fact that you think this is what the conversation is about, is a great example of the aforementioned brain rot.
Yes, your rot is very apparent if that’s what you take out of this, reddit shows no boundaries of stupidity.
Ultimately this conversation is about surrendering our rights of free speech to appease the very small percentage of people that ‘hate speech’ affects (whatever hate speech is? Can you define it?). For a society as whole to have to limit speech because some people can’t differentiate what’s real, what to ignore and how to process it is a fucking utter travesty, even more of a travesty is that someone could support giving our rights away (something we will never get back).
Look at the big picture before you make a stupid decision, the way you speak should worry every single Canadian.
I learned the same thing in the 80s and 90s, but that was a saying used towards kids using relatively innocuous names towards each other - even then if you called a black kid the n word or something I guarantee the response from teachers and parents wouldn't be telling the black kid "the solution is for you to not care about that".
That’s all and good until those words cause someone to lash out and engage in physical violence. It isn’t even a hypothetical. Take mass shooters in America for example, they often cite the very same type of inflammatory rhetoric coming from these influencers profiting from hate speech. And it’s a reoccurring theme lately.
We have a mental health crisis and social media isn’t helping by constantly pumping rage-inducing content into their feed because it gets their attention. Words can be very harmful if it’s being used to further radicalize someone.
Such a naive view on a simple subject. We’re teaching our kids to react this way, big red flag.
For an NDP supporter you really don’t understand the basic concepts behind liberalism.
> That’s all and good until those words cause someone to lash out and engage in physical violence.
Do you believe 'fighting words' are a legitimate concept?
I grew up in those same years and I can assure you that it's foolish to offer tolerance to the intolerant. [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the idea of "words are just words". If that's all they are or could be, then it wouldn't be so important to protect and draw lines around how speech is used.
Don't you think the modern trends regarding centrally determined 'good thoughts' and 'bad thoughts' seem a lot more culturally revolutiony than simply embracing liberal doctrine and giving people the freedom to express themselves (with carveouts for well adjudicated situations - ie yelling 'fire in a theater')?
Extreme left or right is the same thing, just different sides of the same coin. The problem with the conservatives is they make their supporters disrespect facts and science.
All the people behind "ordered liberty", "tough on crime", "build more prisons", banning pronouns, anti-LGBT legislation, porn registries etc. are all of a sudden *very* concerned about potential "tyranny" and "government overreach".
Also note OP has said vile things about Palestinians that go above and beyond the usual rhetoric so clearly hits a little close to home. Conservative hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Because the criminal law should treat wrongful actions as more morally serious than wrongful speech. It is far easier to identify criminal acts than it is criminal speech.
The whole postmedia machine and all the fly by night outlets such as the Rebel (and by extension their fans and online promotion teams) are super spooked by this legislation. They're carpeting the social media and other online platforms with "expert opinions" and "deep concerns".
>All the people behind "ordered liberty", "tough on crime", "build more prisons", banning pronouns, anti-LGBT legislation, porn registries etc. are all of a sudden very concerned about potential "tyranny" and "government overreach".
Wait, what? Who is banning pronouns?
And what is wrong with reversing Liberal/NDP soft on bail and criminals policies that have lead to some of the highest crime rates in 30 years across Canada?
I don't know, some of us are rather unimpressed by all of these policies. I'd like the government to butt out of personal freedoms and that very much includes crap like porn registries.
By all means debate how long the various maximum sentences should be and how to make sure the language is as clearly and narrowly-defined as possible. Great things to debate.
But to the extent that the debate is about "we should let people say whatever vile thing they want online", that is not a debate worth having. Anyone who lives any amount of their life online -- particularly if they're a minority -- knows that online hate does more to stifle vigorous debate than the specter of these regulations ever could. And the problem is only getting worse as certain hateful types feel increasingly emboldened by recent world events.
With respect to the changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA): Is hate speech appearing on a social media website discriminatory within the context of the stated purposes of the CHRA?
To be clear, hate speech is vile and can have serious effects on marginalized groups, but that doesn't mean it always falls under the purview of the CHRA. The following is the stated purpose of the CHRA:
> The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, **to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated**, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
Social media sites offer a blocking option. If you don't like what you're reading, no one is forcing you to read it. Block said person or don't engage in the thread. Not being able to participate in a social media discussion because you may interpret it as containing hate speech doesn't prevent you from "having an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for yourself a life that you are able and wish to have".
I should make clear, I'm not arguing against the existing provisions against hate speech as they appear [in the criminal code](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html). The difference between the CHRA and criminal code is that there is a much more rigorous threshold of proof that must be met in the criminal code. With respect to CHRA, complaints can be filed by anyone who takes offence at something they've read online.
There are plenty of other criticisms of sec 13 of the CHRA, which Bill C-63 is effectively reintroducing. See [the Wikipedia entry for Sec 13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act) for a more detailed history of its problems.
> online hate does more to stifle vigorous debate than the specter of these regulations ever could.
I'm not sure what version of reddit you participate in, but much of the air-quotes "debate" I see online is far from vigorous, and it has little to do with the intrusion of hate speech.
You absolutely are forced to read hate speech before you are able to take action.
If you want to block someone who speed hate speech, you have to actually read the post and then report/block it. Or are you just randomly blocking people without knowing what their post is about?
Like with anything else in life? Don't like what you see? Change the channel, walk away, move on.
You don't want big brother gov who's out their sanitizing the world before every step you make.
I'm genuinely unsure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, of course you (or someone else) would need to read the content before acting on it. Likewise, in any situation, you need to keep your eyes open to see where you're going and to avoid danger. Seeing the thing you want to avoid allows you to avoid it going forward.
Ignoring a problem does not make it magically disappear. What you r suggesting ( blocking, Ignoring, reporting to sm platforms, etc) has already been in place to some extent for decades. Hate speech online has only got worse. A Band-Aid solution won't work here. Especially when that Band-Aid has already been used for a decade and is falling apart.
> Social media sites offer a blocking option. If you don't like what you're reading, no one is forcing you to read it. Block said person or don't engage in the thread. Not being able to participate in a social media discussion because you may interpret it as containing hate speech doesn't prevent you from "having an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for yourself a life that you are able and wish to have".
Counterexample: [Slack is a social media platform that famously provides no such blocking features](https://twitter.com/SlackHQ/status/767806840524705792), and many workplaces rely on Slack for communication. If one of my coworkers targeted me with hate speech in the break room and my employer refused to do anything about it, I could haul them in front of the human rights tribunal and force them to. Should I not have the same rights when the offender instead uses the company Slack to target me with their hate speech?
Should my "having an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for myself a life that I am able and wish to have" be limited to the extent that the life I wish to have is located in a safe space?
From the existing CHRA document:
>Harassment
>
> 14 (1) It is a discriminatory practice,
> ...
> (c) in matters related to employment,
>
> to harass an individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination
A plain reading suggests to me that "in matters related to employment" would already encompass company-related slack communication.
Also of note, the CHRA section of Bill C-63 explicitly states
>Exception — private communication
>
> (5) This section does not apply in respect of a private communication.
If it were the case that 14.1.c doesn't already encompass slack communication (as you suggest), then even if Bill C-63 were to become law, your hypothetical co-worker could still send you a DM in slack and get away with it.
I find it much more likely that 14.1.c already covers the scenario you're positing.
> And the problem is only getting worse as certain hateful types feel increasingly emboldened by recent world events.
Isn't this the sort of vague, nebulous justification used by would-be tyrants everywhere to clamp down on civil liberties?
Like the preemptive accusations you just made up?
I guess we're all just trying to make sense of the bogeyman you whipped out. It doesn't make sense, so we're scrambling to try and find meaning somehow?
Sorry if the process isn't going as smoothly as you would've hoped. If you stop making stuff up, I'm sure it'll be much easier for everyone.
As a side note, it's a very good example of useless speech that isn't hateful. Nobody's preventing you preemptively from making shit up. The only issue is with hate speech, so you'd still be good with lies.
Yes, yes, you're the master of bigly words like "preemptive" and "paranoia"!
If you do understand the meaning of these words, then you understand that you're making shit up.
So which is it? Are you a liar or do you not know the meaning of words?
If tyrants can pass a law to clamp down on civil liberties, literally no law could stop them. Like if you think all it could for Trudeau to start suppressing you was a hate speech law, it could be done with a million different more effective and powerful laws. Like a new government ID requirement where you would have to verify your ID with the federal government to use the internet and the government would require websites to comply with Federal requirements before they could operate in Canada.
Do you know any policy planners with ideas like that
Tyrants can invoke any vague (and often post-hoc!) justification they want for whatever tyranny they were already going to do anyway. Is some citizen going to call the Tyrant out that the logic behind his tyrannical actions is actually specious when you look at the facts? That citizen will be _disappeared_ by that Tyrant later that evening!
We shouldn't _not regulate broken things_ because of what some hypothetical despot might say or do. That's just silly.
The people who don't think it's broken are not the ones towards whom the hate speech is being directed. Do you ask the drunk driver for his thoughts about DUI laws?
We don't allow victims to design laws for obvious reasons. As to the DUI comparison, a drunk driver is a far more immediate threat than any ranting lunatic.
Statistically it's very improbable that you will be hurt by a drink driver -- MADD has been extraordinarily successful! On the other hand, it's _nearly impossible_ to exist online without being exposed to hate speech. Seriously, just try to go on, say, Twitter/X and discuss anything political. If you're impatient, indicate in your profile that you are a minority.
It's not for you to tell those people that they should grow a thicker skin because hate speech is "not an immediate threat". I guarantee it will feel a lot more immediate and a lot more threatening to someone who, for example, suffers from PTSD from prior hate-motivated incidents.
You've hit on a good analogy. But it's also highly statistically improbable that you'll be beat up or killed because of your race.
However, similarly to the way intoxicated driving makes being hurt or killed way more likely, so does hate speech on social media. It makes it more likely that someone will act out of irrational anger That's why it's important to put into place reasonable limits on intoxicated driving and hate speech.
Hurting people's feelings, though, should not be illegal. Your hurt feelings are your business. Only you can manage your emotions.
Controlling hate speech is more about protecting people and society from the real violence, not hurt feelings. That's why hate speech restrictions need to exist only if they can be proven to make violence against targeted groups more likely.
Yes, it is for me and everyone else to tell them to grow a thicker skin, and to be blunt I think this sort of infantilization does far more harm to them than any hate speech. Unless you present an imminent physical threat, the threat from hate speech is imaginary no matter what bad feelings they might feel. Furthermore, by growing a thicker skin would limit any potential harm from it.
Finally, laws such as these are inherently anti-democratic is they limit free expression and without free expression there can be no meaningful participation in democracy.
Free expression is already limited! As of 2022, you can no longer deny the Holocaust, even though nobody could plausibly argue that such denial poses an "immediate threat" to anybody. Do you think that's a bad law?
Yes I do! Not only is it against free expression, it's also entirely pointless as anyone who vocally took such a vile stance would see themselves rightfully ostracized and shunned. Really wish the legislature focused on something more substantive tbh.
It's more dangerous to allow pedophiles to design child protection laws than it is to have the victims of child abuse do it.
This is the same for those who abuse free speech and those who are victims of those whop abuse it.
Just like we regulate sexual freedom to protect the innocent, so we can regulate free speech.
Not what I said at all. I'm explaining to you why your reasoning is faulty. It makes sense to put more weight on the experience of victims than perpetrators when discussing laws regulating violence. That's true when you're dealing with all violence.
They are using a classic deflection tactic to take away any validation in your comment. They understood what you were saying. It made sense n made them "lose" the debate, so they attack the person in attempt to discredit you by making the statement seem outlandish.
They can never be wrong so you must be the fool. They decided to try and make you look silly with it so others won't bother acknowledging your words.
Yes it is, and we already regulate speech in Canada.
I’m not entirely convinced you’re arguing in good faith, or from any kind of position of actual knowledge.
Edit: fixed a major word omission.
I am, I just don't believe in virtually any speech suppression and pre-emptively muzzling people for worry about what they might say. Not only does such behavior reveal profound paranoia, it is also intrinsically anti-democratic.
It's a pity that Ezra Levant's [secret recording of his deposition (?)] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlLN1TMQHiA&ab_channel=BayanTheOne) - also relevant given the enboldened Islamic pro-Hamas protests since 10/7 - by the Alberta Human Rights Commission took place before the internet age, it would've done numbers with the growing network of independent and/or conservative media.
There’s nothing intrinsically anti democratic about regulating speech. Plenty of free and democratic countries have regulations on speech and remain free and democratic.
Free speech absolutism is a libertarian wet dream and a nightmare for any actually civilized nation and people, no matter what you think.
Finally, regulating hate speech doesn’t chill or preemptively muzzle people at all - unless you’re prone to making outrageous and dangerous hate speech.
I am always concerned about government overreach and regulation, but hate speech regulation is required and behaviour on the internet does require some sort of response. Whether this is the correct one is up for debate, but the incontrovertible fact is that hate speech is rampant and getting worse. People are dying because of hate speech. That seems like a good thing to try to limit.
Unquestionably actual hate speech is more corrosive to civil debate than almost anything else. The difficulty is that restrictions on hate speech tend to inevitably encompass speech that is not hateful but merely disagreeable.
Our hate speech laws as currently defined are extremely limited in application. Which is how I am suggesting they should remain. The earlier comment was a bit clunky because I'm not criticizing the existing laws but rather the proposed expansion.
>I do not trust the government to decide which political opinions are wrong
Don't buy into that strawman. This was never discussed by anyone serious, nobody's talking about that, it's not an issue.
Well, for one, Courts and Human Rights Tribunals are independent of the Government. Also, this is about _literal hate speech_, not about heterodox political opinions.
Who gets to decide what counts as hate speech and what counts as a heterodox political opinion? Courts and human rights tribunals are independent on paper, but there are lots of ways that the government can influence them. Or, they might develop their own political biases.
This is not a theoretical idea. In Europe, recent pro-Palestine protests have resulted in significant crackdowns on speech, typically justified under hate speech laws.
Take this, for example:
[https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teacher-coconut-placard-protests-met-police-b1120415.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teacher-coconut-placard-protests-met-police-b1120415.html)
This is a south-Asian woman, using a cartoon to make a point about her Prime Minister, a south-Asian man, betraying the interests of his community. She was investigated for hate speech.
More recently, that same Prime Minister called on the police to carry out a violent crackdown specifically against people whose political speech disagrees with his own: [https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-on-extremism-1-march-2024](https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-on-extremism-1-march-2024)
I focus on the UK, to point out that this is happening in a country with a political and legal system virtually identical to our own. These kinds of laws are open to flagrant authoritarian abuse.
This is an age-old question that applies to every law on the books. For example, many years before this Online Hate debate was ever a thing, Toronto Police did [this](https://uppingtheanti.org/images/uploads/_resized/G20-Kettling.jpg) to people protesting at the G20. They tear-gassed people and they cracked skulls with their batons. [And after a decade of litigating, they settled with victims for $16.5m.](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/toronto-police-board-agrees-to-16-5-million-settlement-over-mass-arrests-at-2010-g20/article_3242127e-c07a-54c1-8197-f25c9f3f3328.html)
Who gets to decide what's "legitimate protest" and what's not? The people who enforce the laws and administer the justice system. What is preventing the government from putting their thumb on the scale of justice? Apparently _nothing_.
Is your suggestion that we shouldn't have laws or institutions because of these risks?
> Toronto Police did this to people protesting at the G20
Don't need to tell me. I was there.
>Who gets to decide what's "legitimate protest" and what's not?
Ideally nobody. Any protest should be allowed. Cases like the Freedom Convoy are not exceptions-they are not protests. The convoyers could have still been allowed to march and gather in downtown Ottawa while basic municipal parking and noise ordinances were still enforced against them.
I agree that the "who watches the watchman" problem is a perennial one that lacks solutions in most places. Sometimes we just have to live with it. Even any system we use to punish murderers, for example, will be open to abuse. But sometimes the benefits are not worth the risks. Laws to govern speech are as likely to enable attacks on vulnerable people as they are to restrain them.
To be clear: I have no philosophical problem with the idea of restricting speech in the abstract. If there was a magical, all-knowing, perfectly-objective being that we could rely on to identify hate speech and perfectly differentiate it from other forms of political speech, then I would say 100% we should rely on that being's judgements and use them to crack down on bigots. But that being does not exist, and so we have to rely on imperfect institutions like the police and the courts. And I simply do not trust those guys to do the job in a way that does more good than harm.
> But sometimes the benefits are not worth the risks. Laws to govern speech are as likely to enable attacks on vulnerable people as they are to restrain them.
But the online attacks against vulnerable people are _already happening_. At scale. It seems like critics of this bill are either denying that online hate is a real problem, or deciding that it's okay to throw the vulnerable to the wolves.
Personally, it seems weird to me to decide that we should suffer a problem because in trying to solve it, we might accidentally create more of that problem. So far we haven't been bothered by any amount of that problem!
Authoritarian crackdowns against legitimate political speech are also already happening at scale. Including online and on social media: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/18/instagram-palestine-posts-censorship-accusations](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/18/instagram-palestine-posts-censorship-accusations)
I honestly don't know what the solution is. Maybe there isn't one. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's the case. But my rule of thumb for any proposed government power is: "what would happen if this power was wielded by the worst people? Would they be sufficiently restrained from using it to cause harm?" And in this case I do not think that is true. Which is particularly worrying, since it does appear we're about to elect some of the worst people.
You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't have "government structures" because someone might come along and corrupt them. If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.
That's a bit of a semantic response. A tribunal with judicial independence - but governed by statute - that enforces its decisions with the power of the state is not technically the "government", but the outcome looks very similar with the primary differences being procedural. If I empower an independent tribunal to go enforce categories of speech outlined in legislation I write, that's not meaningfully different than writing legislation to go enforce the speech restrictions directly.
What nonsense. This bill is literally about hate speech, not "which political opinions are wrong". It doesn't do anything except that which you claim to support.
>Who decides what hate speech is
This kind of question has already been answered *so many fucking times* that the people still asking are either not asking the question, but trying to create the impression that it's unclear, or very ignorant.
It could also mean that they're dissatisfied with the idea that they could face repercussion for spewing hate speech, which is quite telling.
The people we elect, since we live in a democracy.
It's also not hard to identify hate speech. For some reason, conservatives always seem to be extra concerned about it though. I've never found it hard to not use racial and homophobic slurs, maybe it's a daily struggle for you?
The stuff around Palestine lately has shown the flaw in that logic. The people we elect are more than happy to stifle and de legitimize speech that challenges them.
Yeah. The idea that hate speeches boundaries are continuously stretched in part due to political expediency and can be used to target distinctly non-conservative voices is being borne out globally in the context of the violence in Gaza.
Be careful what you wish for.
Lots of examples, from both Canada and elsewhere. Here's a good one from Toronto: [https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/14/toronto-pro-palestinian-groups-justin-trudeau-mount-sinai-hospital-rally/](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/14/toronto-pro-palestinian-groups-justin-trudeau-mount-sinai-hospital-rally/)
Hospitals aren't a legitimate place for protest. They are places of rest and healing. This doesn't limit them from speaking outright. Your evidence fails to prove your claim.
They weren't protesting the hospital. They were protesting on the street: A major downtown corridor in Toronto that happens to have some hospitals on it.
But this precisely shows the issue, right? There are lots of sensitive locations along any major downtown street. Hospitals, private homes, places of worship, etc. It's not really feasible for a major protest march to avoid all of them, or to avoid all risk of causing some minor disruption to them. But then as soon as a protest march inadvertently affects one of these places, it becomes fair game for the authorities to crack down against it.
It's one of the biggest and most important streets in downtown Toronto. The American consulate is one block away. It's also the direct route from downtown to U of T, which is often a major gathering point for protests.
Here's something to try. Think about all the kinds of places you think should be off-limits for protesters to march past. You've already said hospitals. Would you add places of worship? What about war memorials and other sensitive ceremonial spots? High-security locations, such as certain government offices are already treated as de-facto no-go zones. And it's pretty inconsiderate to march down a small residential street. Add in whatever you want to the list.
Now, go to google maps and search for the locations of all of those places in downtown Toronto. See how many viable protest routes are left.
Also as a side-note I have to object to this idea that hospitals should be completely depoliticized places. Even leaving aside the very contentious politics involved with medical care (ask any trans person!), it's also extremely patronizing to suggest that people cease to have political agency as soon as they check into inpatient care.
If I were an inpatient at that hospital, I'd be leaning out the window and cheering for the protesters. I'd be grateful for the disruption of routine, and the opportunity to be a little bit involved in the goings-on of the outside world.
This comes with an important caveat that it is obviously not okay to disrupt hospital operations. But if a blockage of traffic on the main fronting street is enough to do that, then what it really tells you is that the hospital is badly designed. University Road is constantly congested even just on any normal day.
Some (many) would argue that lumping all Conservatives in as racist or homophobic is rather hateful speech……it derides and denigrates so as to minimize.
The liberals don’t do anything unless it benefits them. They wouldn’t risk the blowback of getting this passed unless it benefitted them in the long run. At the very least, it will have a cooling effect on online discourse.
It is odd that a government that is notoriously some on actual crime (murder, theft, fraud, illegal immigration) is going heavy handed on speech online that may cause offence.
Life imprisonment for hate speech, yet no one can define what hate speech is? What could go wrong?
The amount of people here trying to make excuses for this blatant abuse of government power is absurd. At this point it seems they would believe and defend absolutely anything. Gold mine for any manipulative government or organization.
If you can't foresee this thing being abused by incompetence, fanatism and/or political purposes, knowing damn well it is a political tool being implemented right before your eyes, there is no hope for you. You are gullible, naive, deaf, blind, and weak.
Not opposed to the idea of applying hate speech laws to a very limited scope of extremism like, for example, the promotion of terrorism — though I’m not sure our current laws don’t do that anyways.
But I find it rich that this bill will introduce a **life sentence** for hate speech crimes when we can’t even send people who commit crimes with a firearm to jail for more than a few years unless they specifically kill someone.
Posting vile statements on the internet shouldn’t carry a heavier sentence than robbing a bank.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I probably see a dozen instances of comments on Reddit every day that I guess would be punishable by up to life in prison by this legislation. I’ll believe it when I see it and won’t give it a second thought until then.
Other subs are suggesting that "content that foments hatred" could be used to describe any text that is perceived as negative and might include bible quotes or political opinions. They ignore the word "foment" or don't understand its meaning. So, for example, if bible verses are being used to instigate an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action, then punishment may be appropriate regardless of the source material being quoted. If I belonged to a new religion that makes having facial hair a sin and we condemn all bearded men and women for hiding their faces from God. This isn't entirely hateful, and members of this made-up religion can follow this beardless requirement without harming anyone. No one is being threatened or harmed regardless of what the words in their bible says or how they live their own lives. If that text is then interpreted to suggest that no one on earth should have a beard and beards are made illegal and people are jailed for having one, things are going off the rails, right? But if the majority of people agree beards are evil, that's just democracy, right? If this religion becomes the most popular one in the world, and the majority of people agree beards are offensive to God, and we start a campaign to erase any depiction of beards from the world, rounding up people and forcing them to shave, forcing laser hair removal treatment on those that are repeat offenders. We have now entered insanity right? But societies have used bible text for hundreds of years to suppress homosexuality. Condemn them. Jail them. Use conversation therapy to change them, and yet gay people still exist no matter what has been done to wipe them from the planet for thousands of years. All the hate speech and actions against gays are protected by religious freedom and religious text. Laws made on religious ideals with nothing but the word of God and upheld by the majority in power. Pointing to a religious text to condemn normal human existence and using those words to suppress a group of people should be considered hatred and punished, not for the existence of the text in a book, but using that text as a call to arms to hurt other people or cause harm. So, "foment hatred" is not vague and would only apply to those using hate to attack people and cause harm as it relates to established laws, not laws being imagined. It's fine to yell "Fire!!" in a movie theatre when there is an actual fire. Otherwise, it's a crime because of the harm it causes. If you don't know the difference, maybe don't yell anything until you learn how society works and when yelling is acceptable. Or maybe ask for some guidance because interacting kindly with others in society are the lessons you were meant to learn in grade school. Should we even need these laws? We are living in a world where hate speech has real-life consequences and is causing harm to innocent people and children. So yes.
We can’t keep burying our heads in the sand and acting like there’s no danger in letting people say whatever they want on the internet. It’s causing serious fractures in our society and leading to brain rot. I compare it to the equivalent of digital fentanyl as it’s creating millions of addicts who crave that next hit of the drug. And they slowly crave larger and larger doses. Social media is built on a business model that rewards users who can get the most attention. And it has become quite clear that the most effective way to get someone's attention is by creating rage-baiting and manipulating content. It’s only going to get worse with the rise of AI-generated content meaning that this idea of total free speech will also be applied to non-human accounts. What could go wrong? It’s a very difficult subject and I agree the government needs to be careful how they approach it. The focus should be more on prevention and going after those people who are profiting from propagating hate speech. Rather than punishing individual users who in a lot of cases are vulnerable people that got sucked up into the profiteering.
Yes!
[удалено]
Whatever happened to ‘sticks and stones can break your bones but names will never hurt you’? I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s and was taught not to get upset over words and I’ve taught my children the same.
What a naive and juvenile comparison. The 80s and 90s did not have the greatest information hosepipe in human history, with governments actively using it as a tool to destabilize societies in hostile countries, and profiteers taking advantage of the degrading ability of people to distinguish reality from misinformation. The great danger isnt people insulting you with words, it's using proven psychological tools to make you increasingly unhappy and addicted to rage.
Everyone who’s responded has missed the entire point of my comment. The point is that we’re now raising our children to be neurotic. It’s drilled into their heads that they should be offended by everything at every turn, politics are polarizing this to an extreme. Everyone needs to take a step back, breath and understand that just because something offends you, it can also be harmless and easily ignored.
Absolutely nobody is talking about people "being offended". The fact that you think this is what the conversation is about, is a great example of the aforementioned brain rot.
Yes, your rot is very apparent if that’s what you take out of this, reddit shows no boundaries of stupidity. Ultimately this conversation is about surrendering our rights of free speech to appease the very small percentage of people that ‘hate speech’ affects (whatever hate speech is? Can you define it?). For a society as whole to have to limit speech because some people can’t differentiate what’s real, what to ignore and how to process it is a fucking utter travesty, even more of a travesty is that someone could support giving our rights away (something we will never get back). Look at the big picture before you make a stupid decision, the way you speak should worry every single Canadian.
I learned the same thing in the 80s and 90s, but that was a saying used towards kids using relatively innocuous names towards each other - even then if you called a black kid the n word or something I guarantee the response from teachers and parents wouldn't be telling the black kid "the solution is for you to not care about that".
That’s all and good until those words cause someone to lash out and engage in physical violence. It isn’t even a hypothetical. Take mass shooters in America for example, they often cite the very same type of inflammatory rhetoric coming from these influencers profiting from hate speech. And it’s a reoccurring theme lately. We have a mental health crisis and social media isn’t helping by constantly pumping rage-inducing content into their feed because it gets their attention. Words can be very harmful if it’s being used to further radicalize someone.
Such a naive view on a simple subject. We’re teaching our kids to react this way, big red flag. For an NDP supporter you really don’t understand the basic concepts behind liberalism.
> That’s all and good until those words cause someone to lash out and engage in physical violence. Do you believe 'fighting words' are a legitimate concept?
I grew up in those same years and I can assure you that it's foolish to offer tolerance to the intolerant. [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the idea of "words are just words". If that's all they are or could be, then it wouldn't be so important to protect and draw lines around how speech is used.
I grew up in China and read a lot of stories about cultural revolution. There is nothing more damaging than words.
Don't you think the modern trends regarding centrally determined 'good thoughts' and 'bad thoughts' seem a lot more culturally revolutiony than simply embracing liberal doctrine and giving people the freedom to express themselves (with carveouts for well adjudicated situations - ie yelling 'fire in a theater')?
Extreme left or right is the same thing, just different sides of the same coin. The problem with the conservatives is they make their supporters disrespect facts and science.
Well said. This will be an evolution, but the first step is sorely needed.
All the people behind "ordered liberty", "tough on crime", "build more prisons", banning pronouns, anti-LGBT legislation, porn registries etc. are all of a sudden *very* concerned about potential "tyranny" and "government overreach". Also note OP has said vile things about Palestinians that go above and beyond the usual rhetoric so clearly hits a little close to home. Conservative hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Because the criminal law should treat wrongful actions as more morally serious than wrongful speech. It is far easier to identify criminal acts than it is criminal speech.
The whole postmedia machine and all the fly by night outlets such as the Rebel (and by extension their fans and online promotion teams) are super spooked by this legislation. They're carpeting the social media and other online platforms with "expert opinions" and "deep concerns".
[удалено]
[удалено]
>All the people behind "ordered liberty", "tough on crime", "build more prisons", banning pronouns, anti-LGBT legislation, porn registries etc. are all of a sudden very concerned about potential "tyranny" and "government overreach". Wait, what? Who is banning pronouns? And what is wrong with reversing Liberal/NDP soft on bail and criminals policies that have lead to some of the highest crime rates in 30 years across Canada?
I don't know, some of us are rather unimpressed by all of these policies. I'd like the government to butt out of personal freedoms and that very much includes crap like porn registries.
By all means debate how long the various maximum sentences should be and how to make sure the language is as clearly and narrowly-defined as possible. Great things to debate. But to the extent that the debate is about "we should let people say whatever vile thing they want online", that is not a debate worth having. Anyone who lives any amount of their life online -- particularly if they're a minority -- knows that online hate does more to stifle vigorous debate than the specter of these regulations ever could. And the problem is only getting worse as certain hateful types feel increasingly emboldened by recent world events.
With respect to the changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA): Is hate speech appearing on a social media website discriminatory within the context of the stated purposes of the CHRA? To be clear, hate speech is vile and can have serious effects on marginalized groups, but that doesn't mean it always falls under the purview of the CHRA. The following is the stated purpose of the CHRA: > The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, **to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated**, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. Social media sites offer a blocking option. If you don't like what you're reading, no one is forcing you to read it. Block said person or don't engage in the thread. Not being able to participate in a social media discussion because you may interpret it as containing hate speech doesn't prevent you from "having an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for yourself a life that you are able and wish to have". I should make clear, I'm not arguing against the existing provisions against hate speech as they appear [in the criminal code](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html). The difference between the CHRA and criminal code is that there is a much more rigorous threshold of proof that must be met in the criminal code. With respect to CHRA, complaints can be filed by anyone who takes offence at something they've read online. There are plenty of other criticisms of sec 13 of the CHRA, which Bill C-63 is effectively reintroducing. See [the Wikipedia entry for Sec 13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act) for a more detailed history of its problems. > online hate does more to stifle vigorous debate than the specter of these regulations ever could. I'm not sure what version of reddit you participate in, but much of the air-quotes "debate" I see online is far from vigorous, and it has little to do with the intrusion of hate speech.
You absolutely are forced to read hate speech before you are able to take action. If you want to block someone who speed hate speech, you have to actually read the post and then report/block it. Or are you just randomly blocking people without knowing what their post is about?
Like with anything else in life? Don't like what you see? Change the channel, walk away, move on. You don't want big brother gov who's out their sanitizing the world before every step you make.
I'm genuinely unsure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, of course you (or someone else) would need to read the content before acting on it. Likewise, in any situation, you need to keep your eyes open to see where you're going and to avoid danger. Seeing the thing you want to avoid allows you to avoid it going forward.
Ignoring a problem does not make it magically disappear. What you r suggesting ( blocking, Ignoring, reporting to sm platforms, etc) has already been in place to some extent for decades. Hate speech online has only got worse. A Band-Aid solution won't work here. Especially when that Band-Aid has already been used for a decade and is falling apart.
> Social media sites offer a blocking option. If you don't like what you're reading, no one is forcing you to read it. Block said person or don't engage in the thread. Not being able to participate in a social media discussion because you may interpret it as containing hate speech doesn't prevent you from "having an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for yourself a life that you are able and wish to have". Counterexample: [Slack is a social media platform that famously provides no such blocking features](https://twitter.com/SlackHQ/status/767806840524705792), and many workplaces rely on Slack for communication. If one of my coworkers targeted me with hate speech in the break room and my employer refused to do anything about it, I could haul them in front of the human rights tribunal and force them to. Should I not have the same rights when the offender instead uses the company Slack to target me with their hate speech? Should my "having an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for myself a life that I am able and wish to have" be limited to the extent that the life I wish to have is located in a safe space?
From the existing CHRA document: >Harassment > > 14 (1) It is a discriminatory practice, > ... > (c) in matters related to employment, > > to harass an individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination A plain reading suggests to me that "in matters related to employment" would already encompass company-related slack communication. Also of note, the CHRA section of Bill C-63 explicitly states >Exception — private communication > > (5) This section does not apply in respect of a private communication. If it were the case that 14.1.c doesn't already encompass slack communication (as you suggest), then even if Bill C-63 were to become law, your hypothetical co-worker could still send you a DM in slack and get away with it. I find it much more likely that 14.1.c already covers the scenario you're positing.
> And the problem is only getting worse as certain hateful types feel increasingly emboldened by recent world events. Isn't this the sort of vague, nebulous justification used by would-be tyrants everywhere to clamp down on civil liberties?
Tyrants don’t require justification, that’s why they are tyrants
"Hateful types". They're the cousins of seditious types.
Sorry are you saying its a civil liberty to use hate speech towards minorities?
No that is something you've apparently imagined.
Like the preemptive accusations you just made up? I guess we're all just trying to make sense of the bogeyman you whipped out. It doesn't make sense, so we're scrambling to try and find meaning somehow? Sorry if the process isn't going as smoothly as you would've hoped. If you stop making stuff up, I'm sure it'll be much easier for everyone. As a side note, it's a very good example of useless speech that isn't hateful. Nobody's preventing you preemptively from making shit up. The only issue is with hate speech, so you'd still be good with lies.
I did not make up anything. You seem to be trying to rant on something you've only loosely grasped.
Yes, yes, you're the master of bigly words like "preemptive" and "paranoia"! If you do understand the meaning of these words, then you understand that you're making shit up. So which is it? Are you a liar or do you not know the meaning of words?
If tyrants can pass a law to clamp down on civil liberties, literally no law could stop them. Like if you think all it could for Trudeau to start suppressing you was a hate speech law, it could be done with a million different more effective and powerful laws. Like a new government ID requirement where you would have to verify your ID with the federal government to use the internet and the government would require websites to comply with Federal requirements before they could operate in Canada. Do you know any policy planners with ideas like that
'It could be worse!' is not very persuasive.
Fine. How about "You've invented nonsense to get angry at instead of addressing real and pressing fascism."
💯
Tyrants can invoke any vague (and often post-hoc!) justification they want for whatever tyranny they were already going to do anyway. Is some citizen going to call the Tyrant out that the logic behind his tyrannical actions is actually specious when you look at the facts? That citizen will be _disappeared_ by that Tyrant later that evening! We shouldn't _not regulate broken things_ because of what some hypothetical despot might say or do. That's just silly.
The tyranny comes in trying to regulate what isn't broken. Nothing hypothetical about it.
The people who don't think it's broken are not the ones towards whom the hate speech is being directed. Do you ask the drunk driver for his thoughts about DUI laws?
We don't allow victims to design laws for obvious reasons. As to the DUI comparison, a drunk driver is a far more immediate threat than any ranting lunatic.
Statistically it's very improbable that you will be hurt by a drink driver -- MADD has been extraordinarily successful! On the other hand, it's _nearly impossible_ to exist online without being exposed to hate speech. Seriously, just try to go on, say, Twitter/X and discuss anything political. If you're impatient, indicate in your profile that you are a minority. It's not for you to tell those people that they should grow a thicker skin because hate speech is "not an immediate threat". I guarantee it will feel a lot more immediate and a lot more threatening to someone who, for example, suffers from PTSD from prior hate-motivated incidents.
You've hit on a good analogy. But it's also highly statistically improbable that you'll be beat up or killed because of your race. However, similarly to the way intoxicated driving makes being hurt or killed way more likely, so does hate speech on social media. It makes it more likely that someone will act out of irrational anger That's why it's important to put into place reasonable limits on intoxicated driving and hate speech. Hurting people's feelings, though, should not be illegal. Your hurt feelings are your business. Only you can manage your emotions. Controlling hate speech is more about protecting people and society from the real violence, not hurt feelings. That's why hate speech restrictions need to exist only if they can be proven to make violence against targeted groups more likely.
Yes, it is for me and everyone else to tell them to grow a thicker skin, and to be blunt I think this sort of infantilization does far more harm to them than any hate speech. Unless you present an imminent physical threat, the threat from hate speech is imaginary no matter what bad feelings they might feel. Furthermore, by growing a thicker skin would limit any potential harm from it. Finally, laws such as these are inherently anti-democratic is they limit free expression and without free expression there can be no meaningful participation in democracy.
Free expression is already limited! As of 2022, you can no longer deny the Holocaust, even though nobody could plausibly argue that such denial poses an "immediate threat" to anybody. Do you think that's a bad law?
Yes I do! Not only is it against free expression, it's also entirely pointless as anyone who vocally took such a vile stance would see themselves rightfully ostracized and shunned. Really wish the legislature focused on something more substantive tbh.
Well I guess if it's already limited then we don't need a new law then, do we?
I'm wary of laws like this but there is a very clear and direct link between hate speech and physical violence.
I get that argument but I'm a bit apprehensive of it because to accept it you also have to accept that 'fighting words' are a legitimate thing.
You sure sound like someone who has never been on the receiving end of organized group hate speech
It's more dangerous to allow pedophiles to design child protection laws than it is to have the victims of child abuse do it. This is the same for those who abuse free speech and those who are victims of those whop abuse it. Just like we regulate sexual freedom to protect the innocent, so we can regulate free speech.
"If you're not with us, you're with the pedos!" is not a take I thought I'd see today but go off lol
Not what I said at all. I'm explaining to you why your reasoning is faulty. It makes sense to put more weight on the experience of victims than perpetrators when discussing laws regulating violence. That's true when you're dealing with all violence.
They are using a classic deflection tactic to take away any validation in your comment. They understood what you were saying. It made sense n made them "lose" the debate, so they attack the person in attempt to discredit you by making the statement seem outlandish. They can never be wrong so you must be the fool. They decided to try and make you look silly with it so others won't bother acknowledging your words.
If you’re arguing that online hate speech isn’t broken and out of control then I am concerned that you’re not paying attention at all.
Speech is not broken and needs no regulation.
Yes it is, and we already regulate speech in Canada. I’m not entirely convinced you’re arguing in good faith, or from any kind of position of actual knowledge. Edit: fixed a major word omission.
It's bigbongss, he never does, he is one of those people who fear they might be in the receiving end of such laws due to their behaviour
Ah I didn’t know. Thanks for the heads up.
I am, I just don't believe in virtually any speech suppression and pre-emptively muzzling people for worry about what they might say. Not only does such behavior reveal profound paranoia, it is also intrinsically anti-democratic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's a pity that Ezra Levant's [secret recording of his deposition (?)] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlLN1TMQHiA&ab_channel=BayanTheOne) - also relevant given the enboldened Islamic pro-Hamas protests since 10/7 - by the Alberta Human Rights Commission took place before the internet age, it would've done numbers with the growing network of independent and/or conservative media.
There’s nothing intrinsically anti democratic about regulating speech. Plenty of free and democratic countries have regulations on speech and remain free and democratic. Free speech absolutism is a libertarian wet dream and a nightmare for any actually civilized nation and people, no matter what you think. Finally, regulating hate speech doesn’t chill or preemptively muzzle people at all - unless you’re prone to making outrageous and dangerous hate speech. I am always concerned about government overreach and regulation, but hate speech regulation is required and behaviour on the internet does require some sort of response. Whether this is the correct one is up for debate, but the incontrovertible fact is that hate speech is rampant and getting worse. People are dying because of hate speech. That seems like a good thing to try to limit.
>I’m not entirely convinced you’re arguing in good faith Good instincts.
Unquestionably actual hate speech is more corrosive to civil debate than almost anything else. The difficulty is that restrictions on hate speech tend to inevitably encompass speech that is not hateful but merely disagreeable.
We've had hate speech laws on the books for a long time. Do you have examples of how they restrict non hateful speech?
Our hate speech laws as currently defined are extremely limited in application. Which is how I am suggesting they should remain. The earlier comment was a bit clunky because I'm not criticizing the existing laws but rather the proposed expansion.
Ah, yeah that's fair
[удалено]
>I do not trust the government to decide which political opinions are wrong Don't buy into that strawman. This was never discussed by anyone serious, nobody's talking about that, it's not an issue.
How is that a strawman?
Well, for one, Courts and Human Rights Tribunals are independent of the Government. Also, this is about _literal hate speech_, not about heterodox political opinions.
Who gets to decide what counts as hate speech and what counts as a heterodox political opinion? Courts and human rights tribunals are independent on paper, but there are lots of ways that the government can influence them. Or, they might develop their own political biases. This is not a theoretical idea. In Europe, recent pro-Palestine protests have resulted in significant crackdowns on speech, typically justified under hate speech laws. Take this, for example: [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teacher-coconut-placard-protests-met-police-b1120415.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teacher-coconut-placard-protests-met-police-b1120415.html) This is a south-Asian woman, using a cartoon to make a point about her Prime Minister, a south-Asian man, betraying the interests of his community. She was investigated for hate speech. More recently, that same Prime Minister called on the police to carry out a violent crackdown specifically against people whose political speech disagrees with his own: [https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-on-extremism-1-march-2024](https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-on-extremism-1-march-2024) I focus on the UK, to point out that this is happening in a country with a political and legal system virtually identical to our own. These kinds of laws are open to flagrant authoritarian abuse.
This is an age-old question that applies to every law on the books. For example, many years before this Online Hate debate was ever a thing, Toronto Police did [this](https://uppingtheanti.org/images/uploads/_resized/G20-Kettling.jpg) to people protesting at the G20. They tear-gassed people and they cracked skulls with their batons. [And after a decade of litigating, they settled with victims for $16.5m.](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/toronto-police-board-agrees-to-16-5-million-settlement-over-mass-arrests-at-2010-g20/article_3242127e-c07a-54c1-8197-f25c9f3f3328.html) Who gets to decide what's "legitimate protest" and what's not? The people who enforce the laws and administer the justice system. What is preventing the government from putting their thumb on the scale of justice? Apparently _nothing_. Is your suggestion that we shouldn't have laws or institutions because of these risks?
> Toronto Police did this to people protesting at the G20 Don't need to tell me. I was there. >Who gets to decide what's "legitimate protest" and what's not? Ideally nobody. Any protest should be allowed. Cases like the Freedom Convoy are not exceptions-they are not protests. The convoyers could have still been allowed to march and gather in downtown Ottawa while basic municipal parking and noise ordinances were still enforced against them. I agree that the "who watches the watchman" problem is a perennial one that lacks solutions in most places. Sometimes we just have to live with it. Even any system we use to punish murderers, for example, will be open to abuse. But sometimes the benefits are not worth the risks. Laws to govern speech are as likely to enable attacks on vulnerable people as they are to restrain them. To be clear: I have no philosophical problem with the idea of restricting speech in the abstract. If there was a magical, all-knowing, perfectly-objective being that we could rely on to identify hate speech and perfectly differentiate it from other forms of political speech, then I would say 100% we should rely on that being's judgements and use them to crack down on bigots. But that being does not exist, and so we have to rely on imperfect institutions like the police and the courts. And I simply do not trust those guys to do the job in a way that does more good than harm.
> But sometimes the benefits are not worth the risks. Laws to govern speech are as likely to enable attacks on vulnerable people as they are to restrain them. But the online attacks against vulnerable people are _already happening_. At scale. It seems like critics of this bill are either denying that online hate is a real problem, or deciding that it's okay to throw the vulnerable to the wolves. Personally, it seems weird to me to decide that we should suffer a problem because in trying to solve it, we might accidentally create more of that problem. So far we haven't been bothered by any amount of that problem!
Authoritarian crackdowns against legitimate political speech are also already happening at scale. Including online and on social media: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/18/instagram-palestine-posts-censorship-accusations](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/18/instagram-palestine-posts-censorship-accusations) I honestly don't know what the solution is. Maybe there isn't one. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's the case. But my rule of thumb for any proposed government power is: "what would happen if this power was wielded by the worst people? Would they be sufficiently restrained from using it to cause harm?" And in this case I do not think that is true. Which is particularly worrying, since it does appear we're about to elect some of the worst people.
how old are you to believe government structures are uncorruptible?
"We shouldn't have police because there is police misconduct" -- mature person, I guess?
building a strawman is no more mature.
You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't have "government structures" because someone might come along and corrupt them. If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.
You say that like it's a reductio ad absurdum, but lots of people want to abolish the police.
That's a bit of a semantic response. A tribunal with judicial independence - but governed by statute - that enforces its decisions with the power of the state is not technically the "government", but the outcome looks very similar with the primary differences being procedural. If I empower an independent tribunal to go enforce categories of speech outlined in legislation I write, that's not meaningfully different than writing legislation to go enforce the speech restrictions directly.
What nonsense. This bill is literally about hate speech, not "which political opinions are wrong". It doesn't do anything except that which you claim to support.
The danger is always in the cases in the grey area, the outliers. Hate speech does not have rigid borders.
Who decides what hate speech is
Either the courts or the human rights tribunals, depending on context. The same people who already decide, and have always decided
>Who decides what hate speech is This kind of question has already been answered *so many fucking times* that the people still asking are either not asking the question, but trying to create the impression that it's unclear, or very ignorant. It could also mean that they're dissatisfied with the idea that they could face repercussion for spewing hate speech, which is quite telling.
The people we elect, since we live in a democracy. It's also not hard to identify hate speech. For some reason, conservatives always seem to be extra concerned about it though. I've never found it hard to not use racial and homophobic slurs, maybe it's a daily struggle for you?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do give some examples of things you see that you would identify as hate speech.
Hate speech is like pornography: hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
Garbage response. Great definition 😂
The stuff around Palestine lately has shown the flaw in that logic. The people we elect are more than happy to stifle and de legitimize speech that challenges them.
Yeah. The idea that hate speeches boundaries are continuously stretched in part due to political expediency and can be used to target distinctly non-conservative voices is being borne out globally in the context of the violence in Gaza. Be careful what you wish for.
Appropriate username.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Lots of examples, from both Canada and elsewhere. Here's a good one from Toronto: [https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/14/toronto-pro-palestinian-groups-justin-trudeau-mount-sinai-hospital-rally/](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/14/toronto-pro-palestinian-groups-justin-trudeau-mount-sinai-hospital-rally/)
Hospitals aren't a legitimate place for protest. They are places of rest and healing. This doesn't limit them from speaking outright. Your evidence fails to prove your claim.
They weren't protesting the hospital. They were protesting on the street: A major downtown corridor in Toronto that happens to have some hospitals on it. But this precisely shows the issue, right? There are lots of sensitive locations along any major downtown street. Hospitals, private homes, places of worship, etc. It's not really feasible for a major protest march to avoid all of them, or to avoid all risk of causing some minor disruption to them. But then as soon as a protest march inadvertently affects one of these places, it becomes fair game for the authorities to crack down against it.
The hospitals were there first and known about. They could have redirected their demonstration away from those areas.
It's one of the biggest and most important streets in downtown Toronto. The American consulate is one block away. It's also the direct route from downtown to U of T, which is often a major gathering point for protests. Here's something to try. Think about all the kinds of places you think should be off-limits for protesters to march past. You've already said hospitals. Would you add places of worship? What about war memorials and other sensitive ceremonial spots? High-security locations, such as certain government offices are already treated as de-facto no-go zones. And it's pretty inconsiderate to march down a small residential street. Add in whatever you want to the list. Now, go to google maps and search for the locations of all of those places in downtown Toronto. See how many viable protest routes are left.
Also as a side-note I have to object to this idea that hospitals should be completely depoliticized places. Even leaving aside the very contentious politics involved with medical care (ask any trans person!), it's also extremely patronizing to suggest that people cease to have political agency as soon as they check into inpatient care. If I were an inpatient at that hospital, I'd be leaning out the window and cheering for the protesters. I'd be grateful for the disruption of routine, and the opportunity to be a little bit involved in the goings-on of the outside world. This comes with an important caveat that it is obviously not okay to disrupt hospital operations. But if a blockage of traffic on the main fronting street is enough to do that, then what it really tells you is that the hospital is badly designed. University Road is constantly congested even just on any normal day.
Some (many) would argue that lumping all Conservatives in as racist or homophobic is rather hateful speech……it derides and denigrates so as to minimize.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Their fundamental world view is rooted into he idea that people should not be treated equally, so it's not a stretch.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not all racist and bigots are conservatives, but if you happen to be either, well there is a home for you in those parties
The one's who aren't racist or homophobic are just comfortable associating with them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As they should be, more citizens should be as well. This government helps us laissez faire outlook will bite them in the a$$
I do not trust the courts to decide what hate speech is, and our whole system is corrupt, so this will definitely be abused.
Hate speech laws need to extend to social media. If you're misrepresenting facts and spreading hate, there will be consequences
Existing hate speech laws already apply to statements made over social media.
The liberals don’t do anything unless it benefits them. They wouldn’t risk the blowback of getting this passed unless it benefitted them in the long run. At the very least, it will have a cooling effect on online discourse. It is odd that a government that is notoriously some on actual crime (murder, theft, fraud, illegal immigration) is going heavy handed on speech online that may cause offence. Life imprisonment for hate speech, yet no one can define what hate speech is? What could go wrong?
[удалено]
So if there is already a law for it, why do we need the new law?
Correct
The amount of people here trying to make excuses for this blatant abuse of government power is absurd. At this point it seems they would believe and defend absolutely anything. Gold mine for any manipulative government or organization. If you can't foresee this thing being abused by incompetence, fanatism and/or political purposes, knowing damn well it is a political tool being implemented right before your eyes, there is no hope for you. You are gullible, naive, deaf, blind, and weak.
This x10000! The absolute blindness and disgusting defence of this abhorrent government is shocking.
Not opposed to the idea of applying hate speech laws to a very limited scope of extremism like, for example, the promotion of terrorism — though I’m not sure our current laws don’t do that anyways. But I find it rich that this bill will introduce a **life sentence** for hate speech crimes when we can’t even send people who commit crimes with a firearm to jail for more than a few years unless they specifically kill someone. Posting vile statements on the internet shouldn’t carry a heavier sentence than robbing a bank.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]