Compelled Speech in Canada

[de officiis]

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

Wall of text? I thought you admired that style of writing, since it is what you typically use. But whatevs, what I said is clear enough.

I did not assert that the two laws were equal in their scope, so you are straw-manning. My overarching concern is the element of compelled speech. But we can look at the elements...

There are six elements under § 319(2) of the Canadian law, and they do not include incitement or breaching the peace; those are found only in § 319(1), which is a separate grounds for offense:

(1) communicating (which is defined to include communicating "by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means" - 319(7))

(2) statements (defined to include "words spoken or written or recorded electronically, electromagnetically or otherwise and also include gestures, signs or other representations")

(3) other than in private conversation

(4) wilfully (a state of mind indicating an intent to promote hatred)

(5) promotes hatred

(6) against any identifiable group (now amended to include any section of the public distinguished by ... "gender identity or expression")

"Promotes" is not defined; nor is "hatred." The lack of a definition of "hatred" has been criticized for being "vague and imprecise," and because "the reaction of the audience dictates whether or not an offense has occurred."

Calif Senate Bill No. 219 also has six elements:

(1) a long-term care facility or facility staff

(2) willfully (defined as a purpose or willingness to commit the act, or make the omission referred to)

(3) repeatedly

(4) fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns

(5) after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns

(6) wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived: ... gender identity, gender expression, or HIV status.

So, comparing the scope of these laws,

(1) The Canadian law restricts all members of society, not merely long-term care facilities and their staff

(2) The California law is broader than the Canadian law in the sense that it is not limited to private conversations

(3) Both statutes use similar definitions of wilfullness, which boil down to acting or failing to act with intent or purpose

(4) The Canadian law uses vague and imprecise elements (promotion of hatred) which could easily be applied expansively, whereas the California law is more precise in requiring a showing that the offender repeatedly failed to use the resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the same.

[Smitty-48]

Again, a whole lotta text, twisting yourself into a pretzel, amounting to apples and oranges in the end.

The Canadian law requires the prosecuter to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, wilfull. promotion. hatred. And must be communicating other than in private.

The American law; say the wrong thing to the wrong person, more than once, even a slip of the tongue, guilty of an offence by default. Even communicating in private.

No compelled speech in the Canadian law, you're not being forced to say anything.

Compelled speech in the American law, forced to say the "correct" words, or else.

Even on the issue of vagueness, the Canadian law would require a jury of your peers to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were in fact wilfully promoting hatred, if not, not guilty. A very high bar for the prosecutor to prove, the vagueness works in your favour, a jury would not convict you for a slip of the tongue or simply saying the wrong words.

The American law; did you say the "incorrect" word? Oh, so you did? Guilty.

[de officiis]

Again, a whole lotta text, twisting yourself into a pretzel, amounting to apples and oranges in the end.

The Canadian law requires the prosecuter to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, wilfull. promotion. hatred. And must be communicating other than in private.

The American law; say the wrong thing to the wrong person, more than once, even a slip of the tongue, guilty of an offence by default. Even communicating in private.

No compelled speech in the Canadian law, you're not being forced to say anything.

Compelled speech in the American law, forced to say the "correct" words, or else.

The text is clear; if you can't follow it, that's really not my problem.

Again, willfulness is an element of both laws, and requires proof of acting with intent or purpose.

God only knows what "hatred" means in Canada; at least in California, you are on reasonable notice since you have to "repeatedly" continue to use the wrong pronoun after the person has "clearly" asked you not to. "Repeatedly" obviously is more than a mere slip of the tongue, a point you would admit if you were prepared to argue honestly.

And both statutes can only be said to not involve compelled speech, in the sense that you can choose not converse with someone. Only in that sense can you negate the idea of compelling speech.

[Smitty-48]

You're the one not prepared to argue honestly, it would be very easy to mistakenly call someone, by slip of the tongue, "she" or "he" instead of "ze" or "zer" or whatever it is that California is bizarely defining as "hate speech" if you don't speak the "correct" words, also actually compelling you to use these nonsense words which you don't want to use, even in a private conversation with someone, even a third party, and convicted by default if you do.

The Canadian law would require the prosecutor to prove, to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were wilfully promoting hatred, and in fact, simply using the "incorrect" pronouns and offending someone would not amount to that, couldn't be by accident, couldn't be simply failing to speak a nonsense word, couldn't be in a private setting.

Nothing in the Canadian law compels you to speak a nonsense word in a private conversation as not to offend someone, the Canadian law has a very high bar, prove, beyond reasonable doubt, willfully, promoting, hatred.

A jury in Canada is not going to convict you of an offense for using the word "he" or "she", that's not hatred by any definition and you're not promoting anything simply by speaking the common vernacular, whereas the California law, that law is asserting that using the common vernacular instead of some made up nonsense word, is hate speech by default.

[de officiis]

You're the one not prepared to argue honestly, it would be very easy to mistakenly call someone, by slip of the tongue, "she" or "he" instead of "ze" or zer" or whatever it is that California is bizarely defining as "hate speech", also compelling you to use nonsense words which you don't want to use, even in a private conversation with someone, even a third party, and convicted by default if you do.

The Canadian law would require the prosecutor to prove, to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were wilfully promoting hatred, and in fact, simply using the "incorrect" pronouns and offending someone would not amount to that, couldn't be by accident, couldn't be simply failing to speak a nonsense word, couldn't be in a private setting.

Nothing in the Canadian law compells you to speak a nonsense word in a private conversation as not to offend someone, the Canadian law has a very high bar, prove, beyond reasonable doubt, willfully, promoting, hatred.

Again, I don't know how you can honestly equate a "slip of the tongue" with repeating the same thing willfully after the person has clearly told you not to. That's not a mistake, it's intentional conduct.

Canada excludes private conversations, but California is limited to the people staffing long-term care facilities.

The "nonsense words" are operating in both jurisdictions. Forcing the use of those pronouns was the whole reason these laws were put into place to include gender identity and self-identification.

They both involve imprisonment, and they both require proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[Smitty-48]

Again, I don't know how you can honestly equate a "slip of the tongue" with repeating the same thing willfully after the person has clearly told you not to. That's not a mistake, it's intentional conduct.

Canada excludes private conversations, but California is limited to the people staffing long-term care facilities.

The "nonsense words" are operating in both jurisdictions. Forcing the use of those pronouns was the whole reason these laws were put into place to include gender identity and self-identification.

They both involve imprisonment, and they both require proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

No, again, the Canadian law does not compel you to use any made up nonsense words, the Canadian law makes no mention of vernacular at all, the Canadian law says willfully. promoting. hatred. Doesn't compel you to say anything, doesn't compel you to address anyone by any specific terms. Simply using the common vernacular in Canada, with no intention to wilfully promote hatred, is not an offence.

The California law is literally compelling you to use made up nonsense words, and if you simply speak the common vernacular instead, you're guilty of "hate speech" by default. It's a criminal offence in America now, by default, simply to say the words "he" and "she". And the American law does not leave any room for reasonable doubt, because simply using the "wrong" words is "hate speech" in of itself, either you said it or you didn't, if you did, you're guilty. Did you say "he" or "ze"? I said "he", your honor, but I didn't mean to be hateful I just... *bam* Guilty!

The Canadian prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were actually and wilfully promoting hatred, the American prosecutor just has to prove that you said the "wrong" word one too many times.

Two totally different ballgames, you desperately trying to equate them, is quite clearly disengenuous, seems a stretch that you'd be that stupid, you've just dug yourself into a hole full of horsehit, and now you're flailing to find a way out. /shrugs

[de officiis]

Again, I don't know how you can honestly equate a "slip of the tongue" with repeating the same thing willfully after the person has clearly told you not to. That's not a mistake, it's intentional conduct.

Canada excludes private conversations, but California is limited to the people staffing long-term care facilities.

The "nonsense words" are operating in both jurisdictions. Forcing the use of those pronouns was the whole reason these laws were put into place to include gender identity and self-identification.

They both involve imprisonment, and they both require proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

No, again, the Canadian law does not compel you to use any made up nonsense words, the Canadian law makes no mention of vernacular at all, the Canadian law says willfully. promoting. hatred. Doesn't compel you to say anything, doesn't compel you to address anyone by any specific terms. Simply using the common vernacular in Canada, with no intention to wilfully promote hatred, is not an offence.

The California law is literally compelling you to use made up nonsense words, and if you simply speak the common vernacular instead, you're guilty of "hate speech" by default. It's a criminal offence in America now, by default, simply to say the words "he" and "she". And the American law does not leave any room for reasonable doubt, because simply using the "wrong" words is "hate speech" in of itself, either you said it or you didn't, if you did, you're guilty. Did you say "he" or "ze"? I said "he", your honor, but I didn't mean to be hateful I just... *bam* Guilty!

The Canadian prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were actually and wilfully promoting hatred, the American prosecutor just has to prove that you said the "wrong" word one too many times.

Two totally different ballgames, you desperately trying to equate them, is quite clearly disengenuous, seems a stretch that you'd be that stupid, you've just dug yourself into a hole full of horsehit, and now you're flailing to find a way out. /shrugs

Get back to me when you can unequivocally state that refusing to address a transgendered person in their pronoun choice de jour can under no circumstances under this law constitute "promoting hatred" of that person's gender expression.

[Smitty-48]

Get back to me when you can unequivocally state that refusing to address a transgendered person in their pronoun choice de jour can under no circumstances under this law constitute "promoting hatred" of that person's gender expression.

Get back to me when you have any evidence whatsoever that it would, there's nothing in Bill C16 which would amount to that, so there goes your argument, and "prove me wrong" is the last desperate ploy of the internet hysterical blather spewer, which at this point, invoking that, is clearly you. /shrugs

[Fife]

Poor Smits.

Pour, Smits.

:goteam: :drunk:

[Smitty-48]

Poor Smits.

Pour, Smits.

:goteam: :drunk:

Don't mind me, just forcing Deo to backpedal all the way to "prove me wrong" desperation, and then pouring cold water on that too.