> The bill defines “hate speech” as the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
> These grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
> In addition, the hate speech would need to be communicated in a context where it is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group on any of these prohibited grounds.
> Speech that expresses dislike or disdain, or that discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends would not fall within the definition of hate speech. This distinction is intended to reflect the extreme nature of hate speech captured by the proposed amendments.
The prohibited ground of discrimination are inline with existing definitions (this isn't them caving into the YMCA of Canada or IHRA or something...)
That references some decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. There's an analysis of those here.[1] The Court, in a 4-3 decision, did find that some pamphlets (this was 1990, when people still printed pamphlets) were "hate speech". The court didn't come up with a definition of hate speech. They merely outlined roughly how far the legislature could go in that direction.
So passing the buck to the Court here is evading the issue.
This is a criminal statute. In common-law countries (UK, Canada, US, but not France) there's a general rule of construction that "Criminal law must be clear and unambiguous, so as to give ‘fair warning’." The legislature owes its citizens a clear definition of each crime. They're evading that duty.
This point in particular makes me wonder about how it can get applied...
> In addition, the hate speech would need to be communicated in a context where it is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group on any of these prohibited grounds.
Any communication that is negative about a certain group, or even overly positive about one with the implication that it's considerably better than another's could end up contributing to this effect... Who gets to decide it's "likely"?
The right and the left really can't agree on the balance between equality/equity for who's actually vulnerable enough to need these laws to protect their human rights. This will be applied unevenly, maybe even arbitrarily.
When the government collects 16,000 dollars from every person it can fine for this, would social media even be worth the risk, for a poor person? Some rich kid with the right connections could pull some strings, and financially gut a person they disagree with who said something "likely to foment detestation" on their worst day, putting them 5 figures deeper in debt and driving them off social media. And then the ensuing storm foments hate between both groups. Maybe the poor kid gets a gofundme that won't get shut down so he doesn't have to pay it back over the course of many years, if he's lucky.
Quoting:
> The bill defines “hate speech” as the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
> These grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
> In addition, the hate speech would need to be communicated in a context where it is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group on any of these prohibited grounds.
> Speech that expresses dislike or disdain, or that discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends would not fall within the definition of hate speech. This distinction is intended to reflect the extreme nature of hate speech captured by the proposed amendments.
The prohibited ground of discrimination are inline with existing definitions (this isn't them caving into the YMCA of Canada or IHRA or something...)