Is it ok to say “keep homosexuality out of public school?” In Canada?
That's your interpretation of it...The US also has laws against this too (incitement and fighting words).
in essence they made the person saying words the criminal instead of the violent person reacting to them, I mean I totally get it, it's b.s. but I get it.you don't have to react to words do you? is there some strange lack of control in Canada that people can't?let's say you are a protected class and I say something that's hate speech, you are so weak minded that you might result to violence because I said something that hurt your feelings, these laws protect the mentally fragile, this is the government you have so enjoy it, I'll keep the freedom I have thanks.
To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot. Also, generally, in Criminal Law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with abet.
The precedent was different before Brandenburg (in cases such as Gitlow v. New York (1925), Whitney v. California (1927), and Dennis v. United States (1951)), where the courts ruled in favour of the government. Supreme Court precedents aren't codified in law, and it is entirely possible that the future precedent will be reverted back to pre-Brandenburg standards.
As for Canada, I don't know off the top of my head, as this is one of the cases that would be more borderline (as shown by the cases above).
After further research, the answer is: It depends on the circumstances.For example, R. v. Keegstra (1990) ended up finding Keegstra guilty under Section 319(2), but this most certainly wouldn't be applicable in ALL cases that are similar to this one.
Section 319(3): Four defences[edit]Section 319(3) provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if:
- the person establishes that the statements communicated were true;
- 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;
- the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or
- in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.[15]
section 175. (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
Ok, if you make a racist speech, it wouldn't be prosecuted unless there was a credible likelihood of a breach to peace that comes out of it. The same goes for an antisemitic speech.
The term "likely" shouldn't ever be a standard of evidence. It either is or it is not.
how does one determine what will "incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace"?
I don't see where your government has made a legal definition of hate/hatred.
The various laws which refer to "hatred" do not define it. The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the term in various cases which have come before the Court. For example, in R v Keegstra, decided in 1990, Chief Justice Dickson for the majority explained the meaning of "hatred" in the context of the Criminal Code:Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.[4]More recently, in 2013, Justice Rothstein, speaking for the unanimous court, explained the meaning of "hatred" in similar terms, in relation to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code:In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.[5]
And how would that be determined? If Brandenburg said “bury the ni****s” in the middle of Harlem should he be prosecuted? What about saying the same thing Brandenburg said in a black neighborhood in Canada. Would it be protected?
What incitement is there if he said that in a black neighbourhood in Canada?
Not a single conviction from "fighting words" has been upheld by the SCOTUS since Chaplinsky, and it's precisely because America has a 1st amendment that can't be restricted from overbroad terms like generic "fighting words."
Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
Feiner v. New York (1951)
In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.
The term "likely" shouldn't ever be a standard of evidence. It either is or it is not.
A breach of the peace is defined in Brown v Durham Regional Police Force, [1998] O.J. No. 5274 (CA) as an “act or actions which result in actual or threatened harm to someone” (para 71).
From Wikipedia:The various laws which refer to "hatred" do not define it. The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the term in various cases which have come before the Court. For example, in R v Keegstra, decided in 1990, Chief Justice Dickson for the majority explained the meaning of "hatred" in the context of the Criminal Code:Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.[4]More recently, in 2013, Justice Rothstein, speaking for the unanimous court, explained the meaning of "hatred" in similar terms, in relation to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code:In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.[5]
The mere existence of hate speech laws show a restriction on free speech. Compare that to the US where no such law exists, we definitely have more free speech
Even if I do concede that the US has more free speech than Canada, would that necessarily make it better? I'm asking for your opinion here.
why would anyone want less freedom?
right words which are hateful do neither of those, words that threaten, are a threat, which has been addressed in laws, so hate speech laws have expanded what is considered an "actual threat or threatened harm"
To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot. Also, generally, in Criminal Law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with abet.
you agree that it's not defined I guess since that's the very first line in the quote, it's in bold now. Judges under some guide lines determine if it's hate speech or not, again arbitrary.
insensitivity, bigotry, insensitivity isn't arbitrary to you? values of our society.? so personal values don't matter I guess, not the ones you disagree with anyway. most extreme emotion that belies reason, emotion isn't arbitrary? who defines what belies reason? seems arbitrary. individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect. how authoritarian. enmity and extreme ill-will against the, more feelings again.so we circles back to what I said, this is more about feelings than anything else, your speech is limited by your government so certain people, with special protections don't get their feelings hurt.
In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.[5]
Does protecting various minority groups against this type of stuff seem arbitrary to you?And remember:Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.
Even if I do concede that the US has more free speech than Canada, would that necessarily make it better? I'm asking for your opinion here.
