Government Tables Controversial "Anti-Hate" LegislationMinister of Justice and Attorney General David Lametti tabled Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech) in the House of Commons on June 23, hours before it adjourned for the summer. It was accompanied by a press release and backgrounders promising that the legislation will "better combat hate speech and hate crimes, provide improved remedies for victims, and hold individuals accountable for the harms of the hatred they spread." All on-line postings by individuals on social-media platforms, blogs and websites will be subject to the amended laws and regulations. The Criminal Code, which already contains prohibitions against "public incitement of hatred" and "wilful promotion of hatred" is amended to add a definition of "hatred." It is defined as "the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain; (haine)." A clause cited as being "for greater clarity" adds that "communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends." A new offence is added to the Criminal Code entitled "Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime," whereby an individual who is suspected of being likely to commit a hate crime or engage in hate propaganda can be charged. The Criminal Code will set out a list of recognizance conditions which can be ordered for a convicted individual, such as wearing an electronic monitoring device, and/or being placed under home curfew. The Youth Criminal Justice Act is amended to include "fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime" as one dealt with by the youth court system. The legislation also amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add "Communication of hate speech," as an act subject to complaint. An individual will be able to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission which will be adjudicated by its Tribunal and in the event of being found culpable, the accused may be ordered to take down the offending post and possibly pay compensation to the accuser, along with a fine to the state.
The new provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act states: "It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." The prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act are "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered." As for further regulation of social media platforms, the backgrounder to Bill C-36 states that in the next few weeks, the Liberals will reveal "a regulatory framework to tackle harmful content online." It says "the Government of Canada will engage Canadians on a detailed technical discussion paper that will outline the proposal for making social media platform operators more transparent and accountable while combating harmful content online." This indicates that in the period leading up to the projected early election call, the Liberals will attempt to divert discussion away from the continued racist colonial legacy of the Canadian state as it is practised today and turn attention towards the tweets and posts of Canadians as the source of racism in Canada.
This article was published in Article Link:   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
Who decides what
constitutes a hate crime and on the basis of what
criteria has become a very controversial matter
for Canadians. Why the government slipped it in
hours before the House of Commons adjourned is yet
to reveal itself. But what is certain is that it
is not to encourage discussion amongst Canadians
about what the criteria to determine a hate crime
should be so that it is not used to criminalize
the right to speak. The fact that the legislation
was introduced at the same time as five foreign
social media platforms were taken down by the U.S.
intelligence agencies and government is also a
cause for alarm. It raises the question of what
Canada's "intelligence" agencies will see fit to
do to deprive Canadians of their freedom to speak
in the coming elections. This not only affects
Canadians' civil rights -- which governments claim
the right to subject to what they call "reasonable
limits" -- but their human rights as well because
without the conditions that permit people to speak
freely, communication is impeded which means
people cannot work out a way forward for
themselves and the society they are part of in all
their relations.
Canadians as a
people despise attacks on any section of the
people. This includes the medieval practice of
defaming people by launching personal attacks
against them, sowing doubt publicly about their
character and using the power of their office or
position to fire people on the basis of their
views or for putting things into action the
authorities do not like. Meanwhile, most attacks
carried out against various collectives of the
people are state-organized or inspired by the
state in ways which are verifiable. Governments at
all levels are themselves either using or
condoning defamation to the point of terrifying
people of all ages, including even young people
that if they speak freely to discuss matters of
concern, or wear certain clothes, or dance certain
dances, or sing certain songs, they are
endangering national security, spreading false
information, acting as dupes to a foreign power,
spreading hatred, engaging in acts of racism, or
white supremacy or cultural appropriation, or that
they are anti-trans, or anti-women and many other
things. It enforces a taboo on any discussion
while the people who commit crimes against the
people are not actually tried for the crimes they
commit but for their speech. All of it is to split
the polity in the name of upholding rights, while
protecting those who are truly against the rights
of human beings.