1mo ago

Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, introduced Bill C-9, which, among other things, aims to criminalize the public display of certain "hate symbols"

Minister of Justice ^[5], Sean Fraser, introduced ^[3] Bill C-9 ^[6.1], titled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)" ^[6.2], or the "Combatting Hate Act" ^[6.3], which, among other things ^[6], aims ^[7] to criminalize ^[6.4.3] the public display of symbols "principally used by, or principally associated with, a listed entity" ^[6.4.1], and the Nazi swastika ^[6.4.2].

Here is the text of the bill ^[6], and here is a video of the announcement ^[4].

8 comments

Definition of listed entity
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-83.01.html
List of entities (laws about) §83.05
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-10.html#docCont
The actual list of listed entities
https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2024/2024-07-03/html/si-tr29-eng.html
- It would be a boon for transparency if the government had to state why organizations are being listed. I'm not expecting list of evidence however an explanation would be good.
  
  Too many would be "because my lobbyists said so."
- Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) (also known among other names as O’zbekiston Islomiy Harakati, Harakat ul-Islamiyyah, Islamic Movement of Turkestan, Islamic Party of Turkestan (IPT) and IMU-IPT)
  IMU is fighting for Uyghur Muslims. They fought in Syria. In Syria, they are "terrorists", in China, they are "freedom fighters". Watch this entry closely.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DRzaZiI8_Q
Between the recent news in Ontario about possibly implementing three strikes and mandatory minimum sentences, and this potential new addition to hate speech laws, it feels like decisions are being made these days that are influenced by forces external to the country.
The three strikes provisions sound very American, and the hate speech changes sound very UK. Is it just me?
Wow, that's crazy. I was telling people that Substack banning Nazis was a bad idea, because in any free thinking society the reaction when you tell someone you're banning "hate speech" should be "fuck you people can speak even if it's hateful according to the government."
Yes I know Substack is not the government and yes I know the first amendment doesn't apply in Canada. My point is that "hate speech" is allowed, full stop. If you don't think so, then eventually some kind of speech you care about will be curtailed, because someone decided it was hate speech. You can't have no Nazi speech and yes Palestine speech, you can (in the long run) only have yes both or no both, and unless you care more about protecting the Nazi part than the people who are going to be making the rules care about banning the Palestine part, you will have no Palestine part.
(In case it wasn't obvious, because of course the Palestine Liberation Front and some similar entities are on the list.)
I realize I am in the minority in this. That's what up in my book though.
- You can't have no Nazi speech and yes Palestine speech, you can (in the long run) only have yes both or no both, and unless you care more about protecting the Nazi part than the people who are going to be making the rules care about banning the Palestine part, you will have no Palestine part.
  You make a good argument for governments and similar entities not banning hate speech, but none of this applies to Substack or any other private platform. To follow your example, you only need to go somewhere not interested in (or not willing to go through the effort of) banning pro-Palestinian speech. It's not like Nazis will reciprocate if you allow them on your platform (and even if they did, nobody that's not a Nazi would want to hang out on Nazi platforms).
  
  Fair point. Human endeavors operate a lot by habits and mental models though. People generally will push back harder against government censorship when it happens if they've already got it firmly in mind that "hate speech" is a bullshit category that needs not to exist. Once you start to say that hate speech shouldn't be allowed for example on Substack (which I think is the majority view now), it becomes a lot easier for the government to ban it (which I think is precisely what's happening, both in the US and in Canada apparently).

8 comments