• Section 319, Criminal Code of Canada (Hate Speech)
    46 replies, posted
The Westboro baptist church and other groups like it are a huge thorn in the public side because of the distress their hate rallies cause to the families of fallen soldiers and to L/G/B/T individuals in the USA. Many argue that the right to freely express opinions protects such rallies, but there is an observation I would like to make. The rights that protect them are clearly being abused to disturb the peace and try to provoke a violent response from those who are forced to endure these 'protests'. The right to free speech exists in Canada, but can be limited to a minor degree - and in my opinion, not unreasonably so. Certain laws in the federal Criminal Code clearly outline the specific exceptions to that right, and Section 319 in particular is designed to prevent just such abuses. [release][B]319. (1)[/B] Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. [B](2) [/B]Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. [B](3)[/B] No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. [/release] The strict legal defintion for 'identifiable group' in this case does not include sexual orientation, but federal court rulings have interpreted it to include lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people, and so it will remain. I understand that each State in the USA has its own Criminal Code. I'm very curious to see the similar statutes that each state probably has, and to learn the thoughts of those who live in those states. I, for one, as well as others who do not live in the United States, hope to better understand the provisions in place in the USA that protect the rights of minorities, and how they are enforced.
Agreed. In the US, contrary to popular belief, the freedom of speech is not limitless and absolute. For example, if I were to go into a crowded movie theater and suddenly start yelling "Oh, my god, he's got a gun!/there's a fire!" everyone would panic and trample each other on the way to the nearest exit. When the fuzz showed up, I couldn't put on my coolface and say "I was just expressing my freedom of speech and nothing more" then I would get arrested. This is similar in some cases because it can incite violence which is the same thing as inciting panic. And according to that the Westboro Baptist church is breaking the law because they are most certainly promoting hatred against an identifiable group.
[QUOTE=rivershark;29458084]Agreed. In the US, contrary to popular belief, the freedom of speech is not limitless and absolute. For example, if I were to go into a crowded movie theater and suddenly start yelling "Oh, my god, he's got a gun!/there's a fire!" everyone would panic and trample each other on the way to the nearest exit. When the fuzz showed up, I couldn't put on my coolface and say "I was just expressing my freedom of speech and nothing more" then I would get arrested. This is similar in some cases because it can incite violence which is the same thing as inciting panic.[/QUOTE] Aye, that falls under 'Public Mischief", I believe.
[QUOTE=archangel125;29458109]Aye, that falls under 'Public Mischief", I believe.[/QUOTE] In the US i think its something like "Intent to cause fear in a public place"
[QUOTE=areolop;29458188]In the US i think its something like "Intent to cause fear in a public place"[/QUOTE] That's... quite specific. It makes sense, given that the United States has had a hundred years more than Canada, at least, to make its laws.
[QUOTE=areolop;29458188]In the US i think its something like "Intent to cause fear in a public place"[/QUOTE] It's more of a you can say whatever you want unless it can directly cause harm. For example, saying something like "fire!" in a movie theater or "I want to kill the president."
[QUOTE=archangel125;29458239]That's... quite specific. It makes sense, given that the United States has had a hundred years more than Canada, at least, to make its laws.[/QUOTE] Where I live, in Minnesota; It would fall under Statute: 609.74 - Public Nuisance [quote]609.74 PUBLIC NUISANCE. Whoever by an act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor: [b](1) maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public;[/b] or (2) interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any public highway or right-of-way, or waters used by the public; or (3) is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically provided.[/quote]
Do you folks think that Section 319 is reasonable?
[QUOTE=archangel125;29459168]Do you folks think that Section 319 is reasonable?[/QUOTE] I think so. If doing what WBC does is a crime I'm fine with it. Free speech is still free speech, but when it's something like protesting in front of a funeral saying "God loves dead soldiers" they should be removed from the property by authorities.
[QUOTE=archangel125;29459168]Do you folks think that Section 319 is reasonable?[/QUOTE] I don't like it. I feel like the WBC or any other nutjob organization should be allowed to say whatever they want, regardless as to if it's "promoting hatred" or not. If they're making threats, or suggesting violent action, then no, it shouldn't be protected, but the WBC is just complaining, doesn't suggest violent action, and is ultimately just expressing their opinion dramatically.
We already have laws they're breaking. Defamation, and enticing riots. I've said that before, but apparently people would rather make duplicate rules than use the ones we have.
Sounds reasonable to me. Although I do find it strangely satisfying to jeer at particular groups, especially groups like the WBC. I guess it depends on how sensitive this law is and what it can apply to. I wouldn't probably like it if I was talking with my friend in public about the WBC, then someone eavesdrops and joins in the conversation until it's a big public park event, and the cops are called to arrest everyone. Actually, would this law have been applied to something like Anon and the public protest against Scientology a few years back? [QUOTE=fenwick;29459270]I don't like it. I feel like the WBC or any other nutjob organization should be allowed to say whatever they want, regardless as to if it's "promoting hatred" or not. If they're making threats, or suggesting violent action, then no, it shouldn't be protected, but the WBC is just complaining, doesn't suggest violent action, and is ultimately just expressing their opinion dramatically.[/QUOTE] Dramatically enough to want people to paste them across their windshield. I know I would want to if I had a car.
any limit to free speech is unreasonable
[QUOTE=Leintharien;29459378]Sounds reasonable to me. Although I do find it strangely satisfying to jeer at particular groups, especially groups like the WBC. I guess it depends on how sensitive this law is and what it can apply to. I wouldn't probably like it if I was talking with my friend in public about the WBC, then someone eavesdrops and joins in the conversation until it's a big public park event, and the cops are called to arrest everyone. Actually, would this law have been applied to something like Anon and the public protest against Scientology a few years back?[/QUOTE] [release](3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;[/release] In other words, if Anon delivered their statement in an intelligent manner, meaning to point out how scientology was harming people, it would not be in contravention of this section.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29459417]any limit to free speech is unreasonable[/QUOTE] I don't think so. There was an incident in the early 1900s in the area around where I live, somebody yelled "fire" in a crowded restaurant, and the doors were locked shut, about 20 people died. I don't think that should be covered by free speech.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29459417]any limit to free speech is unreasonable[/QUOTE] Any right ends where it infringes on the rights of another.
[QUOTE=fenwick;29459459]I don't think so. There was an incident in the early 1900s in the area around where I live, somebody yelled "fire" in a crowded restaurant, and the doors were locked shut, about 20 people died. I don't think that should be covered by free speech.[/QUOTE] How does that have anything to do with freedom of speech?
[QUOTE=fenwick;29459459]I don't think so. There was an incident in the early 1900s in the area around where I live, somebody yelled "fire" in a crowded restaurant, and the doors were locked shut, about 20 people died. I don't think that should be covered by free speech.[/QUOTE] What did they die by? If it was fire then I don't understand your argument.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;29459486]What did they die by? If it was fire then I don't understand your argument.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I should have elaborated. There was no fire, and the people died from being trampled in the frenzy. And it was actually 74 people, 59 of them children.
[QUOTE=fenwick;29459528]Sorry, I should have elaborated. There was no fire, and the people died from being trampled in the frenzy.[/QUOTE] That's their problem for being unsafe and unorganized in a hazardous situation. Was there not a fire exit? Why were the doors locked? Why the fuck were they running? They should of been moving in a calm orderly fashion.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;29459548]That's their problem for being unsafe and unorganized in a hazardous situation.[/QUOTE] ...Really? It was their fault for going to a Christmas party? I hope you're trolling.
[QUOTE=fenwick;29459577]...Really? It was their fault for going to a Christmas party? I hope you're trolling.[/QUOTE] It's not their fault for going to a Christmas party. The blame on the deaths of those people belong to the people who trampled them. Also, before I go any further, why the fuck were the doors locked? Sorry, should of elaborated.
[QUOTE=archangel125;29459478]Any right ends where it infringes on the rights of another.[/QUOTE] wasn't aware that you have the right to not be offended.
Hate speech is protected in the United States. You can say anything as long as it doesn't cause "imminent lawless action."
what rights are being infringed by 'hate speech' ?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29459922]what rights are being infringed by 'hate speech' ?[/QUOTE] Public Hate speech breaks harrassment laws in Canada if someone takes offense to it, and the offending party does not cease and desist immediately. Therefore, it violates the right of every person in Canada to life, liberty, and security of the person, in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;29459658]It's not their fault for going to a Christmas party. The blame on the deaths of those people belong to the people who trampled them. Also, before I go any further, why the fuck were the doors locked? Sorry, should of elaborated.[/QUOTE] What the circumstances were are irrelevant. It's irresponsible to provoke panic in crowded spaces, and should not be covered by free speech. Are you seriously saying that panicking people should be individually responsible for deaths they cause when they believe their lives are in danger?
People for fundamentalist freedom of speech are pretty dumb or pretty arrogant.
[quote][b](3)[/b] No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. [/quote] This part makes it near impossible to charge someone unless they're trying to stir up genocide or violence, or something similar I'm fine with the law
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29467748]This part makes it near impossible to charge someone unless they're trying to stir up genocide or violence, or something similar I'm fine with the law[/QUOTE] See? Nothing unreasonable about it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.