Believe in biology? Canada will jail you for 2+ years 4 transphobia

[nonameelf]

how dose Canada define hate speech? not examples but the actual definition?

Advocating for genocide by killing or sterilization. Inciting violence or hatred against groups of people.

The same way any other nation that makes 'hate speech' illegal would define hate speech: "Speech that we don't like against politically correct groups only."

No, it's not, but thanks for playing.

[PC2]

According to what I found online it's just an anti-hate speech law. So it's not actually a matter of free speech- free speech has never allowed one to say whatever they want in any manner (at least in the US). This is just a more consistent application of the law that has existed for years in Canada apparently.

Hate speech shouldn't be illegal, hurting peoples feelings should not be against the law.

[Deleted]

this sounds like something Sweden would do, not Canada.

[nonameelf]

Hate speech shouldn't be illegal, hurting peoples feelings should not be against the law.

Except the Canadian law isn't about feelings. Try again.

[Deleted]

Hate speech shouldn't be illegal, hurting peoples feelings should not be against the law.

agreed! inciting violence or making threats should be illegal imo, but saying something someone finds upsetting should not be illegal. if a private company wants to not allow it on their website or what ever, thats fine, but the government should have no place protecting special snowflakes feelings.

im not sure if thats what this is about, but wanted to rant a bit anyway <3

[Canpinter]

Advocating for genocide by killing or sterilization. Inciting violence or hatred against groups of people.



No, it's not, but thanks for playing.

if its limited to actual calls for violence then fine but if it includes saying things that merely make a group feel bad or offend them we have an issue.

[PC2]

Except the Canadian law isn't about feelings. Try again.

Oh, if it is only about direct violence then I agree with it. You shouldnt be able to threaten to kill people.

[Gheld]

Basically the Canadian definition of "Hate Speech" is a lot closer to the US definition, and miles away from the UK definition. Nobody really has anything to worry about with this. When it starts landing people in jail for random debates on the internet then I'll be the first person protesting it.

[spinner981]

No, it's not, but thanks for playing.

According to this: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...ction-319.html

It says:

"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"

and

"Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of"

Is hate speech. So basically any kind of speech that the law arbitrarily decides is 'hateful' (whether it results in action or not) is deemed hate speech. So yes, what I said is basically right. It doesn't mention anything about only disallowing speech directly condoning violence or murder, just speech that they deem 'hateful' that they personally interpret as being 'likely' to cause others to engage in a 'breaching of peace'.

[Tzalix]

Citing the need to make transgender people “feel safe and secure in who they are,” Canada’s Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression” and make anti-transgender “hate propaganda” punishable by up to two years in prison.

Yeah, how dare they fight against discrimination!

/s

The title of the article makes it sound like believing in biology and being a transphobic discriminating asshole is the same thing.

[Deleted]

Basically the Canadian definition of "Hate Speech" is a lot closer to the US definition, and miles away from the UK definition. Nobody really has anything to worry about with this. When it starts landing people in jail for random debates on the internet then I'll be the first person protesting it.

UK hate speech laws are fucked up. i hope US and Canada don't go the way we went with it

[Deleted]

UK hate speech laws are fucked up. i hope US and Canada don't go the way we went with it

Doesn't beat Swedish hate speech laws where expressing disrespect is enough.

[Fencers]

Is it now where we start talking about shouting "Gun!" on an airplane or "Fire!" in a movie theater, examples that really have no valid comparison to merely speaking against various political agendas?

Those are good examples of free speech not being 'anything goes', yes. But so is verbally harassing or assaulting someone- which many countries view as illegal, unacceptable and an encouragement of the well being of another. To reiterate: free speech has rarely allowed one to say whatever, however.

Based on what I can find of Canadian law on the subject, that seem to be largely the case in their legal history.

[Nerdgasm]

If you "believe" in biology you will know that today literature is actually differentiating biological sex from gender. So, "believing" in biology will not turn you into a transphobe.

Being an asshole (Or someone with some kind of mental illness) will.

Many countries didn't even had this semantic war between the two words.

Not going to tackle the issue of free speech/hate speech... I just think people need to understand that biological sex is one thing, gender is a somewhat bigger term with ties in both biology, sociology and psychology.

[Fencers]

Hate speech shouldn't be illegal, hurting peoples feelings should not be against the law.

Welp, that's a fine opinion. If you want to change that- appeal to your government with sound, well reasoned and prepared arguments. People shape the law.

[Deleted]

Doesn't beat Swedish hate speech laws where expressing disrespect is enough.

yeah but Sweden is in a league of its own when it comes to this sort of nonsense.

[Synadrasa]

Slippery slope ...

I feel you should be able to say whatever the fuck you want as long as no one gets hurt.

The US still has the best freedom of speech with the 1st amendment. Countries like Canada and the UK lag behind the US in terms of freedom of speech with stupid blasphemy laws and hate speech laws.

[PC2]

Those are good examples of free speech not being 'anything goes', yes. But so is verbally harassing or assaulting someone- which many countries view as illegal, unacceptable and an encouragement of the well being of another. To reiterate: free speech has rarely allowed one to say whatever, however.

Based on what I can find of Canadian law on the subject, that seem to be largely the case in their legal history.

But you agree that only hurting someone's feelings without any violent implications should be legal?

[Deleted]

Many countries didn't even had this semantic war between the two words.

In Swedish:
Kön = sex
Kön = gender

Same word for two different things, sure feels good. <.<

[spinner981]

Those are good examples of free speech not being 'anything goes', yes. But so is verbally harassing or assaulting someone- which many countries view as illegal, unacceptable and an encouragement of the well being of another. To reiterate: free speech has rarely allowed one to say whatever, however.

Based on what I can find of Canadian law on the subject, that seem to be largely the case in their legal history.

That's not free speech then. If Canada simply makes it illegal to say things that they personally deem as 'hateful' then that isn't free speech. As a US resident, I see people verbally harassing and 'assaulting' people in public all the time, but just because one person calls another some curse word or even racial slur doesn't mean that they should go to prison. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Welp, that's a fine opinion. If you want to change that- appeal to your government with sound, well reasoned and prepared arguments. People shape the law.

Any law that operates by arbitrarily defining its own meaning on a per case basis to allow for maximum targeting of only groups and opinions of which it disapproves of isn't going to respond to sound, well reasoned and prepared arguments.