So, after bill C-10 has passed onto the senate, David Lametti has introduced a new bill, bill C-36 which is a revival of hate speech laws. Specifically, hate speech over the internet or any other telecommunication service. So this will now give bill C-10 teeth, with damages of up to $20,000 to a person who was deemed to be the victim of someone’s hate speech, as per a judgement from the Human Rights Tribunal. There is also punishment added to the Criminal Code as well. My first issue with this is the implications for how this can be used with his definition of hatred:
“hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain; (haine)”
This is an accurate definition, and how it is used in the bill itself. The problem is, there are many things you can say that would make you detest a group of people. You could for example talk about men entering women’s sports and women’s prisons under the guise of being transgendered. That could definitely cause hate, and is covered under the Human Rights Act. Another example is discussion around the treatment of women, LGBT people, and non-Muslims in general within Palestine. With the rhetoric that Trudeau and his cabinet, as well as people in academia, have been throwing around, it seems like any criticism of any country is racist, and therefore hate speech. There seems to be a protection added, but I think it’s rather vague, and open to interpretation:
“For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
So what does this mean then? Where is the line between something merely meant to hurt or offend someone, and something meant to vilify? This is a huge grey area, one that in today’s climate will definitely be used specifically in conjunction with the intersectional hierarchy.
The punishment is up to 12 months recognizance (parole), or up to 24 after a previous offence of this type. So what would that mean? That’s up to the judge, and if you don’t follow the judge’s orders, you can wind up in prison for up to 12 months. So there are actually two separate ways you can be prosecuted, one through the courts, and one through the Human Rights Tribunal. I’m no law expert, but this seems like a really vague and dangerous road to go down. It seems it can potentially be used politically to shut down attacks on a group that identifies as a national or minority group. This is the wording of who can be targeted:
“an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.”
Notice the end, “any other similar factor.” This leaves a huge amount of room for concern for any reasonable person. I hope this gets shot down as previous bills in the past, but in today’s climate, I’m afraid this might get through. If there’s an election and Trudeau wins a majority, even more so.