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.
In short, there are four defenses for hate speech (my summary): statements were true, statements expressing sincerely held religious beliefs, statements were of public interest, statements were talking about hate speech or hate.
We've had hate speech laws for a long time, my entire lifetime, and they are not used to quell debate or political discourse, unless you consider calling for violence against various groups "political speech". The bar is high, and defenses are strong.
> statements expressing sincerely held religious beliefs
I have an issue with this one. What is it about a religious belief that makes it any more important and protected than an atheistic belief? And how can "sincerely held" be defined? If I make a religion for the sole purpose of hating a group I would otherwise be prohibited from hating, is that OK? What if I indoctrinate somebody into that religion, can they say hate speech and be OK because they're sincerely holding that religious belief?
There's already a defense for truth, so I imagine the religious belief defense is there to avoid the Crown getting stuck in an argument about whether or not a given religion is "true", and the courts having to rule that it is not.
For a secular belief, you'd probably stick to arguing that it is true, seeing as you sincerely believe it to be true.
>You read a single sentence, and presumed a LOT about the law.
Which is to say I assumed sufficient context was provided as is customary in polite conversation.
I also made it quite clear in the first six words of my comment that I was allowing it might not be, as frequently happens.
Thanks for the elaboration.
The claim that the law regulates only "calling for violence against various groups" doesn't seem to jibe with what I read on the Wikipedia page though.
It mentions promoting, inciting, tending to produce feelings of, hatred. And 319(2) doesn't even appear to me to require the speech to be "likely" to result in violence.
I'm not telling you what the laws should be, how they are enforced, or what effect they have had, because I don't know and don't particularly care.
I'm just interested in what the law is. On my first impression it seems rather broad, and after considering the additional context, it still seems potentially rather broad.
> 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...).
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)
> Just reading what you are quoting, it sounds like 319(1) is not allowing for truth or intent as a defense.
With the recent unearthing of the hundreds of bodies of children who died in Residential schools that were often run by the Catholic Church many Canadians have been very vocal for their dislike for the Catholic Church.
It will be very interesting to see how law enforcement chooses to enforce these laws when it comes to public dialogue about powerful institutions like the Catholic church.
Interestingly in Quebec (unlike other provinces), truth does not constitute an absolute defense against libel and defaming. Truthfulness is only a defence if the information was published in the public interest and without malice.
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.