ValentineWiggin wrote:
I didn't know part of being Aspie entailed being an anti-free speech rapist.
mmmm yeah. nor are Canadians such, as a whole.
OP, i am not sure what you think the Canadian laws on statutory rape are. the age of consent is 16 in general.
for people of similar age the age of consent is varies. at age 14 or 15 there is a <5 year age window that is acceptable, and at age 12 or 13 there is a <2 year age window:
Age of Consent to Sexual Activity wrote:
For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence unless it occurs after they are married to each other (in accordance with the "solemnization" of marriage requirements that are established in each province and territory, governing how and when a marriage can be performed, including the minimum age at which someone may marry).
There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.
HOWEVER, in certain circumstances the age of consent is 18. it is open to interpretation so that individuals who (for example) prey on youngters on the internet can be prosecuted:
Age of Consent to Sexual Activity wrote:
However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person's age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person.
source:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.htmlnot sure what this has to do with aspies though. why would aspies be more likely to want to have sex with minors?
***
Hate propaganda is covered under the Criminal Code. we also do have laws against hate speech, in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which covers federal matters. there are similar Human Rights Commissions in each province and territory, though they mainly deal with matters of discrimination.
the Canadian Human Rights Act even has a section that covers hate speech on the intrenet:
What is section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act? wrote:
With the advent of the Internet, the question arose as to whether information posted on a website could constitute hate messages under section 13(1). In December 2001, Parliament amended the CHRA by adding section 13(2) which makes it clear that Internet hate messages come under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
...
This principle — another variation of the minority rights principle — seeks to protect visible minorities from any hate on the Internet or in the public communications sphere, which can have the effect, not only of singling them out as targets of hatred, but also as targets of terrorist acts.Thus, our anti-terrorism law includes important provisions that will allow the courts to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer systems, such as an Internet site. As well, there are Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, committed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property.
...
In addition, there are amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to make it clear that using telephone Internet or other communication tools for hatred purposes or discrimination is prohibited. This is particularly important in light of the Internet's ability to extend the potential reach of hate messages to millions.
source:
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initi ... 1-eng.aspxat least in terms of the Act and guidelines, we restrict free speech to a far greater degree than the United States for the purpose of maintaining the rights of those people targeted. Canadian legislators and courts have tended to seek a balance between the protection of freedom of expression under the Charter and the harm caused by hate speech and propaganda:
Is section 13 consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? wrote:
Mr. Justice Russell Juriansz, Ontario Court of Appeal wrote:
It seems fair to say that the American view is becoming a minority one in the world. Canada is part of what appears to be growing global consensus, which observes that careful restrictions of some forms of speech are both desirable and necessary.
In drawing the line between hatred and free expression, the Canadian courts have taken into account other Charter provisions, most importantly section 15, which provides for equality before and under the law and equal benefit and protection of law, and section 27 which provides that: "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
source:
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initi ... ng.aspx#23some idea here of what is considered hate speech:
What constitutes "hatred or contempt" wrote:
In the Taylor decision, the Supreme Court set out guidelines for determining whether a message was likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt. It adopted the reasoning of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Nealy v. Johnston (1989) in which the Tribunal applied the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary (1971):
"hatred" : active dislike, detestation, enmity, ill-will, malevolence.
"contempt": the condition of being condemned or despised; dishonour or disgrace.
source:
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initi ... ng.aspx#34
the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal acts largely on a complaint basis, so generally a person or group must come forward and make their discomfort known.
***
none of this has anything to do with immigration guidelines. hate speech implies communication of hate, and an immigration decision is not a communication of hate as interpreted by the Act. we do have rules against discrimination, but i believe you must already be Canadian/landed immigrant to be covered by such.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
09 Sep 2011, 5:24 pm
