Canada proposing new "thoughtcrime" law

[dead0man]

and they don't understand why this make some people upset
link-CBC

Speaking on the Public Policy Forum's "WONK" podcast, former chief justice of the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin said society is changing.

"It's our responsibility as responsible citizens, it's the government's responsibility, to deal with new media, new harms, new things that develop in society. So I applaud the government for taking this on, as many other countries have," she said.

But she cited potential problems with the bill's proposed changes to the Criminal Code, such as an increase in the maximum punishment for four hate propaganda offences.

Someone found guilty of advocating genocide, for example, could face life imprisonment, up from five years in prison.

"I do predict that this is going to be challenged in the courts," McLachlin told host Edward Greenspon.

"We have not seen this in speech law, expression law, to my knowledge — life sentences for sending out some words. That's heavy. And it will, I suspect, be challenged."

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called for amendments, saying the bill's "draconian penalties" could put a chill on free speech.

"Bill C-63 risks censoring a range of expression from journalistic reporting to healthy conversations among youth under 18 about their own sexuality and relationships," said executive director Noa Mendelsohn Aviv in a statement issued soon after the bill was introduced.

"The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism. "

[Open Source Intelligence]

and they don't understand why this make some people upset
link-CBC

Speaking on the Public Policy Forum's "WONK" podcast, former chief justice of the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin said society is changing.

"It's our responsibility as responsible citizens, it's the government's responsibility, to deal with new media, new harms, new things that develop in society. So I applaud the government for taking this on, as many other countries have," she said.

But she cited potential problems with the bill's proposed changes to the Criminal Code, such as an increase in the maximum punishment for four hate propaganda offences.

Someone found guilty of advocating genocide, for example, could face life imprisonment, up from five years in prison.

"I do predict that this is going to be challenged in the courts," McLachlin told host Edward Greenspon.

"We have not seen this in speech law, expression law, to my knowledge — life sentences for sending out some words. That's heavy. And it will, I suspect, be challenged."

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called for amendments, saying the bill's "draconian penalties" could put a chill on free speech.

"Bill C-63 risks censoring a range of expression from journalistic reporting to healthy conversations among youth under 18 about their own sexuality and relationships," said executive director Noa Mendelsohn Aviv in a statement issued soon after the bill was introduced.

"The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism. "

Does the bill define what advocating genocide is? Because there's an argument out there that what the Arabs do to Israel is advocating genocide and there's likewise an argument out there that what the Israelis are doing in Gaza is advocating genocide. So that's massive eye of beholder stuff that all sorts of activists will try to drive a bulldozer through if it's not tightly defined. The Armenian diaspora if Canada has one like we do will use that as lawfare to frame everything around forcing people to recognize a bunch of their people got killed 100 years ago because they're parochial like that and that's what they do.

Like a lot of things with good meaning reform unfortunately, opens a giant can of worm .and no one wants to take the time to argue nuance.

[dead0man]

indeed, that is a large part of the problem

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes it is draconian and for that reason amongst others questionable, but is it accurate to claim that it actually targets "thoughtcrime"?

[dead0man]

Yes it is draconian and for that reason amongst others questionable, but is it accurate to claim that it actually targets "thoughtcrime"?

you'd have to take that up with Margret Atwood and

thoughtcrime describes a person's politically unorthodox thoughts, beliefs, and doubts that politically contradict the tenets of Ingsoc (English Socialism), the dominant ideology of Oceania. In the official language of Newspeak, the word crimethink describes the intellectual actions of a person who entertains and holds politically unacceptable thoughts; thus the government of The Party controls the speech, the actions, and the thoughts of the citizens of Oceania.[1]

In contemporary English usage, the word thoughtcrime describes the personal beliefs that are contrary to the accepted norms of society; thus thoughtcrime describes the theological practices of disbelief and idolatry,[2] and the rejection of an ideology.[3]

<shrug>

[Flats the Flounder]

First off, as others have said, and as is typical of most hate speech laws, terms need to be clearly defined. What would "advocating genocide" look like under this law? For example, would bringing a Nazi to Parliament and publicly referring to him as a "national hero" be considered an example of advocating genocide?

Secondly, I think incarceration in general should be seen as cruel and unusual punishment for speech, even if that speech is abhorrent. If you're going to criminalize speech, in my opinion, you shouldn't make the punishment more than a fine. If someone, for example, becomes radicalized for a brief period of time and then comes to regret their past beliefs, I don't see it as fair for them to have to spend the rest of their life in prison for that past mistake.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

For some context, for those not aware, Canada unlike the United States already has hate speech laws.

Federal laws
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Provincial hate speech regulations. For instance, British Columbia
https://bchumanrights.ca/hate-speech-qa/#:~:text=In%20B.C.%2C%20hate%20speech%20is,see%20What%20is%20discriminatory%20speech%3F)

Historical context and major law cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

If Canada still had common criminal law, then, although this legislation might differ in some minor ways from what the courts would have done, this legislation would not be necessary because the courts would have already extended existing hate speech legislation to new technologies/forums.

In the around 60 years since hate speech laws have existed, I don't think Canada has become like George Orwell's 1984.

[Upper Canada Tory]

This will probably end up being ruled unconstitutional. Canada has hate speech laws but they are probably not extensive enough to for this law to be permissible.