[Blue_Nose]

I thought this was an interesting point, and perhaps worth a discussion:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IzbLPSNWA[/youtube]

[DrCaleb]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

I thought this was an interesting point, and perhaps worth a discussion:

Well, firstly he omitted the important part of the Charter. You also have a right to safety and security.

Hate speech legislation comes into force where your right to free speech crosses another individuals right to safety or security.

(still watching) Zzzzzzzzzz.

[Blue_Nose]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

I thought this was an interesting point, and perhaps worth a discussion:

Well, firstly he omitted the important part of the Charter. You also have a right to safety and security.

Hate speech legislation comes into force where your right to free speech crosses another individuals right to safety or security.

(still watching) Zzzzzzzzzz.

No, what he's saying is that your right to safety and security is protected without the Hate Speech laws; incitement of violence/murder is illegal, regardless of whether it's motivated by hair colour, skin colour or cola preference.

[DrCaleb]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

I thought this was an interesting point, and perhaps worth a discussion:

Well, firstly he omitted the important part of the Charter. You also have a right to safety and security.

Hate speech legislation comes into force where your right to free speech crosses another individuals right to safety or security.

(still watching) Zzzzzzzzzz.

No, what he's saying is that your right to safety and security is protected without the Hate Speech laws; incitement of violence/murder is illegal, regardless of whether it's motivated by hair colour, skin colour or cola preference.

Yes, near the end he got to the point - that the hate speech part was redundant. His point was that hate speech laws makes for thought crimes.

But, he's wrong.

Hate speech laws don't make thought crimes. You can think and believe whatever you want. You are free to hate Slobovians or Windows Users. But communicating that hate is what's illegal.

I don't agree with the hate speech laws, but I do think they are nessecary to a degree. Previous to them, it was legal to fire someone for being homosexual, for example. I don't agree with that, you should only be able to fire someone based on the quality of their work.

The hate speech legislation is about more than just murder, it applies to discrimination on any level, based on gender, religion, etc.

[hwacker]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

I thought this was an interesting point, and perhaps worth a discussion:

Well, firstly he omitted the important part of the Charter. You also have a right to safety and security.

Hate speech legislation comes into force where your right to free speech crosses another individuals right to safety or security.

(still watching) Zzzzzzzzzz.

No, what he's saying is that your right to safety and security is protected without the Hate Speech laws; incitement of violence/murder is illegal, regardless of whether it's motivated by hair colour, skin colour or cola preference.

Yes, near the end he got to the point - that the hate speech part was redundant. His point was that hate speech laws makes for thought crimes.

But, he's wrong.

Hate speech laws don't make thought crimes. You can think and believe whatever you want. You are free to hate Slobovians or Windows Users. But communicating that hate is what's illegal.

I don't agree with the hate speech laws, but I do think they are nessecary to a degree. Previous to them, it was legal to fire someone for being homosexual, for example. I don't agree with that, you should only be able to fire someone based on the quality of their work.

The hate speech legislation is about more than just murder, it applies to discrimination on any level, based on gender, religion, etc.

Hate speech law are made for cry babies. Get some thicker skin.

[Blue_Nose]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Hate speech laws don't make thought crimes. You can think and believe whatever you want. You are free to hate Slobovians or Windows Users. But communicating that hate is what's illegal.

"Death to Windows users" wouldn't fall under hate speech - computer preference isn't on the list. It would simply fall under general incitement of violence.

The only groups protected by Hate Speech laws are 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.'

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The hate speech legislation is about more than just murder, it applies to discrimination on any level, based on gender, religion, etc.

But it doesn't apply to any discrimination, and that's his point. Why is it singled out that I'm to be criminally charged for hate crimes for inciting violence against someone because they're black, but not if I'm doing it because they don't use a Mac?

[DrCaleb]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Hate speech laws don't make thought crimes. You can think and believe whatever you want. You are free to hate Slobovians or Windows Users. But communicating that hate is what's illegal.

"Death to Windows users" wouldn't fall under hate speech - computer preference isn't on the list. It would simply fall under general incitement of violence.

The only groups protected by Hate Speech laws are 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.'

Therein lies the problem with the laws. But you could conceivably be charged with 'uttering death threats' to Windows Users.

But, the laws were designed to protect those specific groups. Would it be hate speech if my ex-wife said she hated me? No, not all the criteria were met - I'm not an identifiable group. And the reason she hates me is not because of my religion etc.

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The hate speech legislation is about more than just murder, it applies to discrimination on any level, based on gender, religion, etc.

But it doesn't apply to any discrimination, and that's his point. Why is it singled out that I'm to be criminally charged for hate crimes for inciting violence against someone because they're black, but not if I'm doing it because they don't use a Mac?

Because those specific groups in the past have been the target of hate, beginning with threats, and escalating to actual death simply for being born in an identifiable group. 'Mac User' is a choice, and there haven't yet been crusades or the like against them.

[Blue_Nose]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Therein lies the problem with the laws. But you could conceivably be charged with 'uttering death threats' to Windows Users.

But, the laws were designed to protect those specific groups. Would it be hate speech if my ex-wife said she hated me? No, not all the criteria were met - I'm not an identifiable group. And the reason she hates me is not because of my religion etc.

So it's therefore acceptable for her to incite hatred against you for other reasons?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because those specific groups in the past have been the target of hate, beginning with threats, and escalating to actual death simply for being born in an identifiable group. 'Mac User' is a choice, and there haven't yet been crusades or the like against them.

People in the past get discriminated against for being overweight or unattractive - those too are things they can't choose.

The point is that the list could go on forever, but why should it, when we already have laws that deal with these issues in general? That's why it's a thought crime - its solely based on the personal motives of a person already commiting a crime.

[Wally_Sconce]

There's a big difference between hate speech that calls for violence, and being critical of someone or someone's beliefs.

" x religion is wrong because..." = critical speech

"x religion is wrong because.....so therefore they should be exterminated" = hate speech

[Blue_Nose]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

There's a big difference between hate speech that calls for violence, and being critical of someone or someone's beliefs.

" x religion is wrong because..." = critical speech

"x religion is wrong because.....so therefore they should be exterminated" = hate speech

That's never been questioned, so I fail to see the relevance.

Calling for the 'extermination' of anyone is already illegal - "Windows Users should be exterminated" is inciting murder. It's only considered hate speech, though, if they fall under those specific groups.

In effect, the laws are indicating specifically which groups of people it's considered unacceptable to hate.

[tritium]

**yawn** anti-free-speech laws in Canada are useless.

[kenmore]

well free speech isnt always a hate crime.. only when those who are offended by the topic of speech see it that way... opinions are just that and unless you actually say I hate such and such I dont see it as a crime.. there are too many people coming here and the first thing they say once they have landed is " i know my rights" even though they didnt have any when they left where they were..... trouble is its only hate crimes when it offends certain groups.....

[Blue_Nose]

kenmore kenmore:

well free speech isnt always a hate crime.. only when those who are offended by the topic of speech see it that way... opinions are just that and unless you actually say I hate such and such I dont see it as a crime.. there are too many people coming here and the first thing they say once they have landed is " i know my rights" even though they didnt have any when they left where they were..... trouble is its only hate crimes when it offends certain groups.....

I don't see how this applies to the specifically defined hate crimes we have here in Canada.

You'll find here the legal definition of hate crime in Canada - it has little to do with "offending" people.

[Blue_Nose]

I found this, which appears to be a discussion of how Canada's laws should be reformed to accomodate Hate Crimes, and it includes a number of options, including the following:

Glenn A. Gilmour Glenn A. Gilmour:

Option 1.

If a person commits a crime by reason of hatred of a person's actual or perceived race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, et cetera, the criminal law should not increase the person's penalty for committing the crime either by using the hateful motivation as an aggravating factor at sentence or by creating a separate crime or crimes of hate-motivated conduct.

In order to encompass the full range of options available in any analysis of the problem of hate-motivated violence, this option must be considered.

What can be said in favour of this option? At best, it ensures that the criminal law remains neutral when faced with an accused who commits a crime by reason of hatred of a person's actual or perceived race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, et cetera. Such a person would fare no better or no worse than a person who commits the same crime without having such a hateful motive. This result arguably affords maximum protection to freedom of expression, because it ensures that a person will not be punished for his or her hateful beliefs.

However, such an option is obviously untenable. The protection afforded to freedom of expression is clearly overstated, because what is prohibited is engaging in criminal conduct by reason of hatred of a person's actual or perceived race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, et cetera, not activity that is exclusively that of exercising the right of free speech. It would negate the existing case law, which asserts, correctly, that acts of hate-motivated violence constitute a grave assault on the person attacked, the group to which the person belongs, and society itself. If put into force, it would significantly weaken the protection that the criminal law affords to members of minority or other identifiable groups.

I simply disagree, as does the guy in the video, that this option is "obviously untenable" - I fail to see how the personal motivation of a criminal itself constitutes a "grave assault" on the person (that is, beyond the assault itself).

I also disagree that certain groups deserve increased "protection" from such crimes, as it only seems rational that everyone receive equal protection from violation of personal rights.

[sasquatch2]

Excellant post Blue Nose.

The sad truth is the decision of whether a joke, told in a public venue, is funny or a hate crime is adjudicated based upon the race of the teller. Whether it is Chris Rock or Micheal ??????.

This recent sad event in the GTA with the alleged murder of a 16 year old.

Citicism of the alleged murder is easily portrayed as a sex crime but is the alleged murder itself a hate crime?

I guess it matters who you offend or or who you are deemed to theoretically POSSIBLY offend.