Canada is really doing it's best to shove it's formerly good worldwide reputation and drag it through the muck. Not only do we have a government desperate to avoid environmental responsibility and even fact based decision making we also have a government that specifically wants to make it easier for white supremacists and other hate groups to flourish. Bill C-304 is aimed at chopping the Canadian Human Rights Act to stop government intervention of hate crimes. Unfortunately it looks like the bill will pass and the government's ability to stop people from inciting hatred and violence against others will be reduced.
Just an FYI: When white supremacist groups hail your legislation as a wonderful strike against Zionist oppression you are doing something *wrong*.
That's something I just can't fathom. I am all for free speech and for letting people with stupid, irresponsible, or reprehensible viewpoints talk about their beliefs but when people do things that incite others to crimes and violence towards a particular group it crosses the line. I can't go into an airport and shout "I'm going to set off a bomb!" and expect to be able to laugh it off as artistic expression and people who want to hurt or otherwise attack other groups should be treated the same way. You don't like non-whites? Fine. You are entitled to your knuckle dragging bigotry. You don't get to try to convince others to ruin the lives of non-whites (or whites, for that matter) and claim innocence and free expression.
The strategy of the Conservatives under Emperor for Life Harper is bizarre. They want to increase the government's ability to spy on anyone, anytime, for any reason. They need this for our security, they say. Then they go about passing legislation to make sure that if people are found to be doing horrible things and promoting hatred online that the government can no longer intervene. Apparently they want to check up on us constantly to be sure we aren't doing bad things but racism and violence aren't bad enough to make the list. Presumably they are saving that extra surveillance for people who download music without paying for it; obviously when faced with enforcing music industry copyright and racial hate crimes it is the copyright that requires government intervention. Hate crimes can take care of themselves.
I think you post is a bit misleading.
ReplyDeleteYou say " Then they go about passing legislation to make sure that if people are found to be doing horrible things and promoting hatred online that the government can no longer intervene."
According to the article you linked too, hate speech on the internet will remain illegal. I assume the government can just arrest people for hate speech, charge them, and possibly convict them in a court governed by the law and rules of evidence.
The people who can no longer intervene are the human rights commissions.
Also,"Just an FYI: When white supremacist groups hail your legislation as a wonderful strike against Zionist oppression you are doing something *wrong*." is Ad Hominem.
I think this post does not reach your usual standards.
You are correct that just because a racist lunatic group supports a piece of legislation there is no guarantee that it is a bad thing; crazy jerks are right sometimes. In fact the opinions held by nutters vary so widely that it is quite impossible to do anything without being supported by one group or the other. We should be careful not to condemn ideas just by association. However, unsavory association can be a good warning sign for a misguided approach.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that technically hate speech on the internet is still illegal but when enforcement of a crime is removed the crime is hardly a crime, no? When human rights commissions no longer pursue hate crimes then hate crimes are not illegal in any practical sense. If white supremacists still stood to be prosecuted for hate speech they would not be so happy nor would they have pushed for this so hard.
I was perhaps too harsh and quick when I wrote this piece; I stand by my negative impressions of Conservative motives but I do acknowledge that this time my rhetoric was not as precise as it should have been.
"When human rights commissions no longer pursue hate crimes then hate crimes are not illegal in any practical sense."
ReplyDeleteThis argument ignores the existence of the RCMP. The open question not dealt with either by you or the article linked to is "Are the RCMP capable and willing to investigate internet hate crimes?"
If I were to give opinions on this issue (as opposed to picking holes in yours) I would say the following:
1) I don't like private members bills at the best of circumstances. Without the support of the civil service to write bills it's too easy to make mistakes. Also, having the laws written by the same people who oversee how they are implemented and enforced makes it easier to determine what effect they will have.
A bill about balancing minority and free speech rights with open questions about law enforcement capabilities is not the best of times.
2) I haven't yet done enough research to form a complete opinion of human rights commissions in general, but they are definitely interesting. In the case of the hate speech provisions a couple of high profile cases have convinced me that the HRC is the wrong place to deal with hate speech.
What is almost certainly the context for this bill is documented here: (I'm sorry I couldn't find an unbiased article you'll have to read a right wing commentator extol the virtues of a right wing author/activist) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/the-right-to-offend-the-easily-offended/article1343748/?page=all
This makes me think that hate speech is better dealt with at a criminal offence. This was also the opinion of the from a constitutional expert commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/542541--human-rights-tribunal-shouldn-t-police-internet-hate-report
Levant's take on part of this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-a-strange-place-canada-is/article661959/
In my ideal world, the government would kill this bill (by ignoring it in the senate until Parliament prorogues), and introduce a government bill to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and ensure that the police/legal system could take over enforcing the existing criminal laws. We don't live in my ideal world. I've always said the issue with politicians running on a platform to "eliminate Human Rights Commissions and replace them with judicial bodies under the rules of evidence" is voters can only be bothered to listen to 3 words.
Kilan
1) I completely agree.
ReplyDelete2) I agree that Human Rights Commissions have issues. There is a line between offending people (which is fine) and dangerous hate speech (not fine) and Commissions have crossed that line in the past. If the actual Conservative strategy was to prevent them from investigating hate crimes and have police step in and do the same job but better then I would have no reason to dislike the bill. However, from what I have read the impression I have is that the police won't be stepping in to take over the job and nobody will be doing it. If I am wrong and the police actually will be enforcing it then I certainly withdraw my complaints.
I imagine the police will be doing it in extremely limited cases, and probably only against people who they would really rather be charging with more serious crimes that they can't prove.
ReplyDelete