Compelled Speech in Canada

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Yeah, this is California-brand bullshit, as much as I would like to pass the buck to that perfidious Trudeau!

[de officiis]

The idea of criminaling politically incorrect pronoun use and compelling speech proceeded the California law by the introduction of Bill C16 in Canada in May of last year:
http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetail ... l=42&Ses=1.

The Calif. law was introduced in February 2017 and signed into law this month.

Fake news, there's no criminal penalties in bill C16 for that, that California law doesn't say "hate propaganda", you get a year in jail in California, just for using the wrong pronoun, there's no such penalty in C16.

Criminal penalty for using the wrong pronoun, no such law in Canada, only in the USA, where all this sort of shit originates from, your Lefties are the craziest Lefties, the Canadian Lefties are just the farm team.

The Legislative Summary of Bill C-16 actually shows that you are wrong on both points, both in terms of timing and penalties:

... in 1992, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig v. Canada13 held that sexual orientation constitutes an analogous ground of discrimination under section 15(1) of the Charter and should be considered as an addition to the explicitly listed grounds. The federal government did not appeal the decision, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission began accepting complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1992. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada also confirmed that sexual orientation was an analogous ground in Egan v. Canada.14 It was added to the list of prohibited grounds in the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1996. . . . Bill C-16 seeks in part to add the grounds of gender identity and gender expression to broaden the recognition of the rights of other members of sexual minority groups.

In 1999, a panel established by then Minister of Justice Anne McLellan and chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest conducted a comprehensive review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The panel’s report, Promoting Equality: A New Vision, included 165 recommendations, including “that gender identity be added to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Act.” The report noted that while, in practice, “transgendered individuals are protected from discrimination on the ground of sex or the combined grounds of sex and disability,”


The bill adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act3 and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. It also adds that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a person’s gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance for a court to consider when imposing a criminal sentence.

The bill also adds references to “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code, one dealing with hate propaganda and the other with sentencing provisions for crimes motivated by hate.

As explained below, the amendments add “gender identity or expression” to the identifiable characteristics of a group that are protected from hate propaganda (see section 318(4) of the Criminal Code).

2.2.1 Hate Propaganda
...
Section 319(1) makes it a criminal offence to incite hatred against any identifiable group where this is likely to result in a breach of the peace. Section 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, whether by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means.
...
The offences in these sections require that an identifiable group be targeted. Section 318(4) defines an “identifiable group” for all these provisions as being any section of the public distinguished by race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability. Clause 3 of Bill C-16 adds “gender identity or expression” to this section.

2.2.2 Sentencing Principles

Clause 4 of the bill amends section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which sets out certain principles to be taken into account during sentencing for an offence, including that “a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.” Currently, under subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), the following is deemed to be an aggravating circumstance: “evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.” Clause 4 adds “gender identity or expression” to this list.

So what does Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code say about penalties?

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.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(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.

So I hope you have your expanded pronoun list memorized...

[de officiis]

PS the same shit is has gone down in New York

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 3779c186c1

[Smitty-48]

...actually shows that you are wrong on both points, both in terms of timing and penalties:

No, it doesn't, the HRC is civil law, no criminal penalties, for the C-Code; Section 319 is "incites/wilfully promotes hatred against - likely to breach the peace", section 718 is secondary setencing gudeline related to other offences, none of that is anything like the law in California which invokes criminal penalties for using the wrong wording. There's no "incites/wilfully promotes hatred to breach the peace" in the American law.

You try to present yourself as being some kind of "legal expert", but you're so obviously a poser, clearly you don't even read and/or don't understand the walls of text which you post, you just hope that others don't read nor understand it anymore than you do, so they won't call bullshit on your fakery.

Which, I already knew that, I've seen you in action long enough to know your routine. /shrugs.

[de officiis]

...actually shows that you are wrong on both points, both in terms of timing and penalties:

No, it doesn't, the HRC is civil law, no criminal penalties, for the C-Code; Section 319 is "incites/wilfully promotes hatred against - likely to breach the peace", section 718 is secondary setencing gudeline related to other offences, none of that is anything like the law in California which invokes criminal penalties for using the wrong wording. There's no "incites/wilfully promotes to breach the peace" in the American law.

You try to present yourself as being some kind of "legal expert", but you're so obviously a poser, clearly you don't even read and/or don't understand the walls of text which you post, you just hope that others don't read nor understand it anymore than you do, so they won't call bullshit on your fakery.

Which, I already knew that, I've seen you in action long enough to know your routine. /shrugs.

I have read it, quite carefully, the legislative summary is published by the Canadian Parliament and is therefore trustworthy, it adds “gender identity or expression” to groups who are protected from "hate propaganda," which Criminal Code 319(2) criminalizes as communicating non-conversationally private statements that willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, for which you can be imprisoned for up to two years; you stated yesterday that "You can't catch a criminal charge for that in Canada," when actually, you can, otherwise, there would have been no purpose for the Bill's legislative summary to even mention your Criminal Code; California's statute likewise hinges on a showing of willful conduct; you also stated that the Canadian law aped the California law, when the timeline is actually the reverse, the Canadians have been dicking around with this stuff for awhile, they moved to amend their laws was in May 2016 and California's was Feb. 2017. You keep moving the goal posts but your argument boils down to a difference in penalties, ridiculous fine vs. imprisonment, pick your poison, a difference of degree but not of kind.

[Smitty-48]

Ha, I knew you'd throw up another wall of text smokescreen which avoids the point, Deo, so predictable.

The operating words in the Canadian law are; "incites/wilfully promotes", "hatred", "to breach the peace" , "not in private conversation".

The Crown must prove four parts in order to convict, none of which could be a slip of the tongue using the wrong pronoun.

Whereas in the American law, all you have to do is use the wrong pronoun in a private conversation with some geriatric tranny, and boom, you're in breach of the criminal law. No incitement, no willfully promotes, no hatred, and no to breach the peace.

Nothing of the sort in Canada, two totally different laws, in Canada, it's not what you say, it's what you say which incites/wilfully promotes hatred, to breach the peace, not in private conversation.

But whatever, Deo, keep on flailing there, sign o' weakness. /shrugs

[TheReal_ND]

Whereas in the American law, all you have to do is use the wrong pronoun in a private conversation with some geriatric tranny, and boom, you're in breach of the criminal law. No incitement, no willfully promotes, no hatred, and no to breach the peace.

Wait what? For real?

[Smitty-48]

Whereas in the American law, all you have to do is use the wrong pronoun in a private conversation with some geriatric tranny, and boom, you're in breach of the criminal law. No incitement, no willfully promotes, no hatred, and no to breach the peace.

Wait what? For real?

The California law is for old folks homes, the criminal penalty is for not using the correct pronoun when adressing one of the geriatric trannies you are talking to at work.

You can't catch a criminal charge for that in Canada; there's no incitement, you're not willfully promoting hatred, simply upsetting an individual is not a breach of the peace, and talking to people at work is a private conversation.

If pull out a loudspeaker in the parking lot and start bellowing "God Hates Trannies!" in Canada, OK, that's section 319, but simply not referring to them by the "correct" pronoun is not a crime, particularly not face to face in conversation.

[TheReal_ND]

Wait what? I can shout whatever I want into a bullhorn. What sorcery is this?

[Smitty-48]

Wait what? I can shout whatever I want into a bullhorn. What sorcery is this?

Probably not, because there are incitement laws in the US, it's not like there are no criminal penalties in the US for incitement against the peace, although, I concede that you would have broader lattitude in the US, under Brandenburg v. Ohio; "imminent lawless action".