Is Canada the perfect place for aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

Canada has no laws regarding "hate speech." Those were found to be unconstitutional. They were replaced with criminalization of the "wilful promotion of hatred," which is a much narrower offence.

"Statutory rape" does not exist, and never has, in Canadian law. But our age of consent is 16 (14 if the parties are within 3 years of age of each other). Hardly active hunting grounds for peds. In fact we have some of the most aggressive law with respect to sex tourism and child pornography.

If you are going to paint with such a broad brush, at least be informed.

Define "willful promotion of hatred," and you'll find that it can be given all sorts of interpretations, so Raptor is right on his first point.

HATE PROPAGANDA

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of “genocide”

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of “identifiable group”

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace 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.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any 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.

Defences

(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, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(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.

Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions

(7) In this section,

“communicating” « communiquer »

“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

“identifiable group” « groupe identifiable »

“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;

“public place” « endroit public »

“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

“statements” « déclarations »

“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

As for the second I don't know which one of you is right on the topic, because I'm not an expert on Canadian Law.

Raptor's first point is a statement of his own belief--he doesn't need your pointless statement to reaffirm that his statement correctly identifies his belief. My response was not intended to rebut his belief, but rather to put Canadian law in clearer context.

But since you raise the question, let's look at the definition of "wilful promotion of hatred." Fortunately any competent researcher call pull this up in a matter of seconds. As with any legal analysis, let's begin with the primary sources of law.



The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled upon the constitutional validity of section 319 in R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 (it violates section 2 of the Charter but is saved by section 1), and has further considered the section in R. v. Krymowski [2005] 1 S.C.R. 101.

So, now that you know the definition, we can have a discussion about how much scope there is for interpretation. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, however, I recommend that you read both of the Supreme Court judgements--they are available online, too.



I really don't need to say anything in reply to that.

The case doesn't help your argument nor does the statute, because it can still be defined all over the map.

You forgot the, "nyah nyah!"

In all seriousness, is this your idea of response?

visagrunt, stop and think about who is deciding what "hate speech" is. What is considered hate speech to one person is not hate speech to another, and all it leads to is rampent censorship.

If you are going to paint with such a broad brush, at least be informed.

visagrunt, stop and think about who is deciding what "hate speech" is. What is considered hate speech to one person is not hate speech to another, and all it leads to is rampent censorship.

I was responding to the OP so go bark up that tree.

I never said that you weren't. I was merely pointing out that you were ignorant.

You seem now to be capturing two senses of that word.

Who decides? Why it is the triers of fact--provincial court judges in summary conviction matters, and juries when the Crown proceeds by indictment.

And that is the most eminently sensible way to proceed. No legislature in the world can see into the future. You cannot legislate for every possible circumstance and scenario. All legislation, of every kind, is open to interpretation. Knowing that, the Law of England and Wales created professional classes of people trained in understanding and interpreting the law, and it created an adversarial system in which any subject could present an argument about the correct interpretation of the law.

You are the inheritors of a 900 year tradition of judicial prudence and fairness.

Government always infringes on free speech. Are liable and slander still torts in US Common Law jursidictions? Are incitement to riot and sedition still criminal offences in US jurisdictions? Who defines what words are libellous? Who defines what speech is slanderous? Who decides whether words have incited a group to disturb the peace tumultuously? Who decides whether words are seditious? These are all proper questions for judges and juries--and if they are competent to determine whether speech falls within those classes, they are equally competent to decide whether speech has fallen into others.

The Supreme Court of Canada does not generally set down proscriptive determinations of interpretation--the Supremes tend to restrict themselves to questions of constitutional validity, and procedural questions. The Court will set out tests for the lower courts to follow, but will always defer to trial courts' findings of fact if the trial courts have reached those findings in a fair and constitutional manner.

Thank you for proving Raptor's and my point. The definition is subjective and therefore can be defined as anything that those in power don't agree with.

Nobody has mentioned yet that Canada recently refused permanent residency to an otherwise qualified family, originally from the UK, because one of their sons has Asperger's. Canada cited the cost of care for the son in refusing residency.