Canada's hate speech laws are out of bounds on Quatloos. Nor do we allow religious discussion apart from the intersection of religion and sovereign beliefs such as Belanger's idiotic argument that Canada's laws are of no legal effect because they are not written up in the King James bible.
The Quebec mosque shooting is a good example of how confused these discussions can get. Was it motivated by religious hatred? Racial hatred? White Supremist beliefs? All of the above? Only the shooter knows. The RCMP don't seem to care about specifics, they just lumped the Quebec shooter and everyone else they don't like into the same category;
Speaking to a Senate committee, Mr. Paulson described the lone suspect in the Jan. 29 murder of six Muslims in Quebec City as a “criminal extremist.” He defined this category to include people such as Justin Bourque, who killed three Mounties in Moncton in 2014, and the Freeman-on-the-Land movement that challenges government’s authority across the country.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e33920071/
Belanger, Menard, the Poriskyites, and most of the other freeman types we discuss here might be a pain in the ass for the police and other government officials but equating them to mass murderers is just stupid and seems counter-productive to actually focusing on real threats.
Where was I going here? Right. Ninja said;
thing about hate speech is its a slippery slope type of argument. take Islam for example. say you dont like it and your a racist. islam is not a race nor is it a religion. it is a political system. yet it is treated the same as a race or religion or sexual orientation. thusly hate speech laws are thinly veiled censorship. i may not like what people say but things that only hurt feelings should not be outlawed.
or should we run to our safe spaces because my post triggered you? maybe we need trigger warnings here...
I assume what ninja is referring to is this from the Criminal Code of Canada;
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(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; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
About as vague a piece of legislation as it is possible to imagine. "Willfully", "incites", "likely", these qualifiers could mean anything. Throw in whether Islam is a religion, or a political system, and you have a discussion way outside of the mandate of Quatloos. As ninja said, a slippery slope and one we're not going down.
Ninja, and perhaps coffeekitten appear to be of the opinion that the hate speech law is a terrible piece of legislation infringing on free speech and is being used as a weapon to stop what should, in a democracy, be the right to free discussion (I may be expanding a bit more than these two posters implied). If that's their position I entirely agree with it but we're stuck with the law. So a discussion on it is pointless.
"
