Hate laws vital in the digital age, Supreme Court hears in landmark case

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Section 13 - Hate Laws - Human Right Commissions

Hate laws vital in the digital age, Supreme Court hears in landmark case


Hate laws vital in the digital age, Supreme Court hears in landmark case - The Globe and Mail

The instantaneous spread of hateful material through the internet has made it all the more vital that hate-mongers be restrained, the Supreme Court of Canada was told this morning.

Launching oral arguments at a landmark appeal pitting free speech against anti-hate protections, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission lawyer Grant Scharfstein urged the Court not to leave minorities even more vulnerable than they already are.

“There has been a sea change in technology that allows it to be dessiminated at the push of a button,” Mr. Scharfstein said.

He said that even the Bible may contain passages that would qualify as hate literature. They key is whether material has the effect of causing harm to a minority.

“The Human Rights Commission would be in the position of reviewing the scriptures,” Mr Justice Louis Lebel said.

At the centre of the case is a 43-year-old, anti-gay proselytizer – William Whatcott – who distributed thousands of flyers in Saskatoon harshly criticizing gay relationships and lifestyles.



‘More protection’ needed in hate speech cases: lawyer | News | National Post

OTTAWA — At the Supreme Court review of Canada’s hate speech laws, in the case of anti-gay pamphleteer William Whatcott, a lawyer for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission acknowledged his province’s law is written so vaguely and subjectively that most of it is deliberately ignored in practice.

Grant Scharfstein told a panel of seven judges that section 14 of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code, which prohibits speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity [of an identifiable group]” is interpreted in law to mean only “hatred.” He said the rest could be struck out without any effect on how cases are prosecuted.

He compared the vagueness to the similarly fuzzy requirement in the Highway Traffic Act that drivers exercise “good care and attention,” but said in both cases the law provides crucial protection.

“The SHRC is not saying that the respondent cannot hold the belief and opinions he holds. We are not saying he cannot spread and disseminate those views publicly. What we are saying is that he cannot do it in a way that is hateful,” Mr. Scharfstein said.

The legal definition of hatred has been further refined in human rights law with a checklist of “hallmarks of hate,” including descriptions of target groups as a powerful menace, predators of the vulnerable, the cause of a current social problem, dangerous or violent by nature, devoid of any redeeming qualities, and requiring banishment, segregation or eradication to save society from harm.

“Since Taylor, there has been a sea change which allows one to spread hate at the push of a button,” Mr. Scharfstein said, citing the recent Norwegian massacre as an extreme example. “More protection is needed, not less.”

Taylor was a narrowly split 4-3 decision, in which current Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin was in the dissenting minority, favouring a more robust defence of free speech. In a sign the top court might be willing to overturn 20 years of jurisprudence, and update or even strike the Taylor precedent, Mme. Justice McLachlin questioned the validity of that definition, which aims to capture the subjective emotion of hatred with an objective legal test.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Anyone that thinks any speech short of incitement to violence (or screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre) should be subject to criminal code regulation understands absolutely nothing about liberty or our basic right to freedom of speech.

If that person (God forbid) sits on the Supreme Court of Canada, they are a disgrace to that position.

.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,902
11,183
113
Low Earth Orbit
What's next...a campaign against masturbation?

All you masturbaters are Hell bound where you'll spend you're afterlife jacking off trying to put out the fires of Hell.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Anyone that thinks any speech short of incitement to violence (or screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre) should be subject to criminal code regulation understands absolutely nothing about liberty or our basic right to freedom of speech.

If that person (God forbid) sits on the Supreme Court of Canada, they are a disgrace to that position.

.
I couldn't agree more.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I couldn't agree more.

So preaching that homosexuals are evil - Is that hate/religious belief? But not Hate Speech?

So preaching that Jews are evil - Is that hate/religious belief? But not Hate Speech?

So preaching that Muslims are evil - Is that hate/religious belief? But not Hate Speech?

But calling for their death or to wreak havoc on them is Incitement to commit a Hate Crime as they are being singled out on a specific basis for injury / death?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
So preaching that homosexuals are evil - Is that hate/religious belief? But not Hate Speech?
Not hate speech.

So preaching that Jews are evil - Is that hate/religious belief? But not Hate Speech?
Not hate speech.

So preaching that Muslims are evil - Is that hate/religious belief? But not Hate Speech?
Not hate speech.

But calling for their death or to wreak havoc on them is Incitement to commit a Hate Crime as they are being singled out on a specific basis for injury / death?
Yep, hate speech.

EAO supports hate groups and defends their hate speech and genocidal policies. While chastising anyone that dares points out the majority of global terrorism is Islamic.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Not hate speech.

Not hate speech.

Not hate speech.

Yep, hate speech.

EAO supports hate groups and defends their hate speech and genocidal policies.

Well I agree - Just some points for other to start upon -

Section 13 should be repealed.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Too many people in this country lack the ability to tell hate speech from bigoted stupidity, and thats why we have the intrusiveness of the HRC's manifesting themselves into an abomination of what they should be.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Too many people in this country lack the ability to tell hate speech from bigoted stupidity, and thats why we have the intrusiveness of the HRC's manifesting themselves into an abomination of what they should be.
The HRC's are/were an abomination, even before they were hijacked by asshats with an agenda.

We have laws and a Charter, that protects peoples rights.

The HRC's are a redundant waste of money and simply Gov't PC feel good largess.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Too many people in this country lack the ability to tell hate speech from bigoted stupidity, and thats why we have the intrusiveness of the HRC's manifesting themselves into an abomination of what they should be.

That is an excellent point - Same as when in a heated arguement - Things get said.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
The real problem with hate laws as they stand, actually promote more hatred and frustration
than not having them and here is why,
One side of the argument pushes the envelope to get as close to hatred and bigotry as they
can. The other side meanwhile confuses in some cases deliberately, the distinction between
Hatred and Criticism. and there is a huge difference.
When people talk about the Muslim issue for example, anyone who dares to be critical of the
extremest or fundamentalist Muslims is somehow labelled as a bigot when in fact they are
attempting to discuss the inconsistencies espoused by the more radical group.
The Muslim Community on the other hand cries discrimination when it come to outlawing
some of the dress codes of these people. For example the face covering is not part of the
religion at all, it is based on custom not on religion.

When people are intimidated, or threatened with hate laws and or civil liberties action the rude
and nasty comments are silenced true. However the discussion that could in fact bring the facts
to light good and not so good, to light and help to break down the barriers of mistrust and
tensions. The problem is the hate laws as they are called are not hate restrictive laws at all,
they are a stifling to free speech and keep a lid on people understanding the difference between
hate and legitimate criticism.
I for example have learned a lot about the Sikh religion from asking questions sometimes put out
in a vary blunt form, I have a number of Sikh friends and I found some of their belief systems to
be quite fascinating actually but I have some critical statements about their attitudes toward women
in a democratic society. I was surprised to find that many in their late thirties and younger agree
with me. Not only that the new generation is in fact marrying outside of their race and religion.
Unless people are allowed to discuss their attitudes and opinions, we will never get past the
stereo typing and negative attitudes, because we will never be able to discuss the opinions to the
point where we can determine fact from fiction.
Sometimes we do more harm than good when we want to restrict human behaviour, with weak and
laborious laws. We know the difference between criticism and hate and the law should not
confuse the issue either.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
We are not supposed to hate anything but it is impossible to love a banker, they simply cannot feel it, but hate they understand. Let's not be too quick to condemn normal healthy revulsion for the pricks of this world.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
I have almost no confidence the the SCOC, who are part of the same emerging judicial tyranny that includes the Human Rights Tribunals by way of the Charter, which are a joke as far as any concept of due process and objectivity are concerned.

The digital element is a non issue. The real issue is that the Supreme Court comply not to a written, reasoned law, but a vague determination of intent, or thought, on the part of the accused. They are held to an almost impossible standard of having to prove their innocence of a crime whose only legal definition is inscribed by the attitude of the presiding jurist of that intent, for which no proof is necessary to convict.

Tribunals are infused with all of the maudlin sentimentality of a false assumption of the complete vulnerability of the accusers, who are accorded a special credulity, due to membership in a perceived 'victims' group. At the same time the accused is accorded all the prejudice that applies to assumed origins of his thought, such as belief in Christianity. They accord criminal penalties to what is essentially a civil process, with a much lower standard for conviction.

The whole thing is an affront to the concepts of equality before the law, presumption of innocence, due process, rules of evidence and a clear and objective list of charges based on written law.
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I have almost no confidence the the SCOC, who are part of the same emerging judicial tyranny that includes the Human Rights Tribunals by way of the Charter, which are a joke as far as any concept of due process and objectivity are concerned.

The digital element is a non issue. The real issue is that the Supreme Court comply not to a written, reasoned law, but a vague determination of intent, or thought, on the part of the accused. They are held to an almost impossible standard of having to prove their innocence of a crime whose only legal definition is inscribed by the attitude of the presiding jurist of that intent, for which no proof is necessary to convict.

Tribunals are infused with all of the maudlin sentimentality of a false assumption of the complete vulnerability of the accusers, who are accorded a special credulity, due to membership in a perceived 'victims' group. At the same time the accused is accorded all the prejudice that applies to assumed origins of his thought, such as belief in Christianity. They accord criminal penalties to what is essentially a civil process, with a much lower standard for conviction.

The whole thing is an affront to the concepts of equality before the law, presumption of innocence, due process, rules of evidence and a clear and objective list of charges based on written law.
That's a great opinion. To bad the bulk of it is based on fantasy.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,282
479
83
59
Alberta
Anyone that thinks any speech short of incitement to violence (or screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre) should be subject to criminal code regulation understands absolutely nothing about liberty or our basic right to freedom of speech.

If that person (God forbid) sits on the Supreme Court of Canada, they are a disgrace to that position.

.

I couldn't agree more.

Offending post removed..