babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Canada Hate Speech law

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canada Hate Speech law
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 29 June 2006 04:21 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Section 319

. . .
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;
. . .

Question:

Should this law be enforced against people who advocate hatred of women as a group? I am not sure if the law can be applied in this way or not.


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 June 2006 04:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I tend not to agree with hate speech laws in general, so I wouldn't support them for any group, really. I think that unless speech is used to directly threaten someone (which I believe is already covered by assault, right?) that "hate speech" should not be illegal. I tend to like the American approach to free speech better than the Canadian. So, no.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 29 June 2006 04:39 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Part of that law that I did not quote (319(1)) deals with the situation where the hate speech is likely to lead, in a fairly direct way, to actual violence, but that is definitely not a requirement for violation of 319(2).

I agree that Section 319(2) goes too far for the reasons you said, but I think there is an argument that as long as the law is on the books we should use it. It does seem like a very powerful tool against people who preach hatred of women. I don't think it would take more than a couple of prosecutions under this section before men got the message.

[ 29 June 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pearson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12739

posted 07 July 2006 12:39 PM      Profile for Pearson        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm surprised gender is not one of the identifiable groups - particularly after the Marc Lepine tragedy.

However, Section 13 of the Charter, gives some protections based on gender - protections that could be considered more far-reaching than the hate-crimes legislation.

Of course, defining hatred, would be an arduous endeavour, given the broad range of things that some consider to be hatred.


From: 905 Oasis | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 07 July 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One problem with enforcement would be that that most of the hateful speech against women seems to be directed at individuals, feminists, or other specific "types" of women, instead of all women in general.

This is in contrast to the hate speech directed at races, religions or sexual orientations, in which the entire group is vilified.


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca