Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:58 pm    Post subject: Liberals reviewing options for internet hate speech law Reply with quote

( it seems the liberals quest to overturn anything and everything harper did , has no limits even bills everyone seemed to agree with at the time )


Liberals reviewing option to revive controversial internet hate speech law repealed in 2013

Section 13 had been enormously contentious, with critics of all political stripes arguing it was overly broad and had weak safeguards around speech rights


Justice Minister Jody Wilson-RaybouldAdrian Wyld/The Canadian Press



Brian Platt
Brian Platt


January 22, 2018
7:37 PM EST

Filed under
Canadian Politics



OTTAWA — A hate speech law that generated years of heated controversy over free speech before being repealed in 2013 could be making a comeback, at least in some form.

Earlier in January, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould’s office told a B.C. man it is looking at whether Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be revived.

The correspondence was sent to Cran Campbell, a 69-year-old resident of Langley, who has long campaigned against online hate speech. He had recently written to Wilson-Raybould about his troubles fighting back against false allegations posted about him, and had requested that her government bring back Section 13.

“Thank you for your correspondence concerning your personal situation,” says the email signed by Wilson-Raybould. It was received by Campbell on Jan. 5, 2018. “I note your suggestion that the Government should bring back the legislation that was in the Canadian Human Rights Act to deal with hate messages on the internet. It may interest you to know that this option is currently under review. I will take your comments into consideration.”

The email, first reported by the Langley Times, also points out Canada still has Criminal Code provisions that address hate propaganda.


Asked to confirm that a study of Section 13’s return is underway, Wilson-Raybould’s office acknowledged the correspondence and said that in general, the justice department “frequently reviews our laws and policies.”


“The Government is committed to taking effective measures to combat all forms of discrimination in Canada, including acts that incite or promote hatred against persons,” it said.

“Section 13 of the CHRA, which was repealed by Parliament in 2013, made hate speech a discriminatory practice specifically in relation to telephonic or Internet communication. Reintroducing Section 13 of the CHRA would require careful examination. Nevertheless, hate speech continues to be comprehensively sanctioned through Canada’s criminal law framework.”

Section 13 was removed from the books in June 2013 after a private member’s bill from Conservative MP Brian Storseth was passed. Liberal MP Keith Martin had tabled a bill to repeal Section 13 in 2008, but it stalled and then died on an election call.

The law had been enormously contentious, with critics of all political stripes arguing it was overly broad and had weak safeguards around speech rights. Its defenders said the law was a necessary tool to fight hate messages spread through the internet.

Section 13 made it a discriminatory practice to convey messages over the phone or internet that contain “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt,” as long as those people were “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

Instead of proceeding through the criminal courts, complaints made under Section 13 were dealt with in the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which hears complaints made under the Act. If a Section 13 complaint was upheld, the tribunal could levy fines of up to $10,000 and issue cease-and-desist orders.

A series of high-profile controversies eventually brought about the end of Section 13. The most sensational case came in 2007, when a complaint was made against Maclean’s magazine over articles it had published on Islam, including a cover that declared “Why the future belongs to Islam.” Similar complaints alleging discrimination toward Muslims were also made in provincial tribunals.


Our country should have those laws, especially concerning the internet

- Cran Campbell


All of the Maclean’s complaints were eventually dismissed or ruled out-of-order, but it focused public attention on the hate speech provision and generated reams of commentary from critics arguing that prosecutions around hate speech should be conducted by the standards of criminal courts, rather than through human rights tribunals.

In 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Section 13’s penalties — which were added to the Act in 1998 — were an unconstitutional violation of freedom of expression. That decision was ultimately overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2014, which upheld both Section 13 and its penalty regime as constitutional.

But, by that point, Storseth’s bill to repeal Section 13 had already been passed, making the court decision moot in practice — though it did keep the door open for the law’s revival.

Canada has Criminal Code provisions that prohibit the incitement of hatred against identifiable groups, the promotion of genocide and the distribution of hate propaganda. The charges come with heavy penalties, including prison time, and have a special provision that requires the sign-off of an attorney general before being laid.

Campbell said he’s been writing to various public officials for years, calling for online hate speech protection to be added back into human rights legislation.

“My personal hope is that this part of the Human Rights Act is reinstated and enforced, and given back to Canadians who had that right before a private member’s bill threw it out,” he said in an email to the National Post.

“Our country should have those laws, especially concerning the internet because it is a powerful tool for the good but is also a powerful weapon against a society and individuals,” he said.


http://nationalpost.com/news/p.....ed-in-2013
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5866
Reputation: 286.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you know what hate speech is? Where is the line, I wonder, in criticizing ... oh, say Islam? Or when do you get into 'hate speech' when intersectional feminists goes after cis-gendered white males?

It's just an attack on free speech.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1163
Reputation: 118.5
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Do you know what hate speech is? Where is the line, I wonder, in criticizing ... oh, say Islam?

One can bash Islam all day long if they want. Ezra might go broke from it since folks have tuned that moron out.

Pretty easy to find out.
Here ya go.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
Quote:

It's just an attack on free speech.

Oh my. How silly.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5866
Reputation: 286.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(psst -- for those whose brain still functions, it isn't free speech if you can be forced to appear before a tribunal to justify yourself.)
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1163
Reputation: 118.5
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
(psst -- for those whose brain still functions, it isn't free speech if you can be forced to appear before a tribunal to justify yourself.)


...or yelling Fire in a theatre , no matter which country you are in.

So yes, unequivacably we have free speech.

Thanks for playing ! Try again soon.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5866
Reputation: 286.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(psst -- except ... have you ever heard of an actual person actually yelling Fire!!! in a crowded theatre just for a joke? It never happens.)

The stuff I am talking about actually happens. You might get away with saying that anyone who would kill his own daughter for family honour has his head up his ass. But put Islam in that sentence and you're in trubble.

That's what I mean. And, let's face it, down the road we are going to have to talk about some unpleasant aspects of getting immigrants who don't assimilate.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1163
Reputation: 118.5
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
(psst -- except ... have you ever heard of an actual person actually yelling Fire!!! in a crowded theatre just for a joke? It never happens.)
Not that I recall.

But then again, no one has been charged for just saying things. There is always an intent to harm behind it.
Ijn actuality, the US has much the same restrictions as we do.
Quote:

The stuff I am talking about actually happens. You might get away with saying that anyone who would kill his own daughter for family honour has his head up his ass. But put Islam in that sentence and you're in trubble.

Not at all. One can say that all day and all night and not a lick of legal harm will come.
Quote:

That's what I mean. And, let's face it, down the road we are going to have to talk about some unpleasant aspects of getting immigrants who don't assimilate.


There is no relevance to this post, but ok. We can talk then.

What do we do with the Canucks born here who dont assimilate?

DO they get a free ride?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5866
Reputation: 286.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I suggested that 'we' as a nation were going to talk about these things, I didn't have TC in mind. He doesn't have a nickel's worth of common sense. I mean the practical sensible people.

While we're on the subject, have you seen Jordan Peterson's latest videos ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgcoHmgqLBE

It's probably not for people with short attention spans, but the core of his message is found starting at about 18:00 ...
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1163
Reputation: 118.5
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
When I suggested that 'we' as a nation were going to talk about these things, I didn't have TC in mind. He doesn't have a nickel's worth of common sense. I mean the practical sensible people.



Hahaha...says the guy that sees behind every corner , the fabulous Gay Agenda, agents in the schools trying to convert Lil'Jimmy over to the dark side and all sorts of funny claptrap.

Go on gramps, shake your fist at the sky.

And my lack of common sense has corrected you too numerous times to mention.

Try again boy.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Liberals reviewing options for internet hate speech law

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB