Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your quote: "If I say, one group of people commit too many crimes. That’s hate speech."
That does not rise to the level of prosecutable hate speech in Canada. The test would be defined as adding the rider to that statement; "we should kill all those people." Now you have incited violence upon a defined minority and will be prosecuted just as your fighting words test prevents you from doing similar in the U.S.
You don't seem to understand the fundamentals of what constitutes an actionable offence under the law and are interpreting it merely offensive language, idea or opinion constitutes "hate speech". It does not.
As you are aware, Bru, there is more to the criminal law in Canada than a criminal code. It is further defined (narrowed, widened, etc.) by cases decided in court. See, for example, Keegstra, Zundel, and a few others. Look to the caselaw for a definition of "hate speech" under Canadian law,
At any rate, if memory serves (and I am not going to look it up on a Saturday night), prosecutions can only move forward under CC s. 319 if the Attorney General approves. No approval, no prosecutions; and that's why there have been so few prosecutions under s. 319, and even fewer convictions.
Generally, what happens is somebody publicly says or publishes something that advocates the genocide or serious injury to an identifiable group. These groups are defined in the caselaw. This statement upsets the group, who complain to various authorities. An investigation into the matter begins, and if there is enough evidence, and if the statement fits the definitions, and if the Attorney-General approves, only then will an arrest warrant be issued.
But it is most assuredly wrong to believe that if you say "I hate Martians" to a friend while walking down the street, and a police officer overhears, that you can be arrested and charged. That is absolutely not true.
Thank heaven you arrived Chevy. I get so tired of this nonsense coming from this quarter.
As far as the practical aspect of expressing an unpopular opinion is protected in either country is concerned; there are no less than two threads running in this very section of people suffering punitive measures today in America because of something they said decades ago. While not suffering prosecution under any laws, it nevertheless sets precedents as to "I have the freedom to say what I like when I like without fear of restraint" being just another myth.
Your quote: "If I say, one group of people commit too many crimes. That’s hate speech."
That does not rise to the level of prosecutable hate speech in Canada. The test would be defined as adding the rider to that statement; "we should kill all those people." Now you have incited violence upon a defined minority and will be prosecuted just as your fighting words test prevents you from doing similar in the U.S.
You don't seem to understand the fundamentals of what constitutes an actionable offence under the law and are interpreting it merely offensive language, idea or opinion constitutes "hate speech". It does not.
All I can think is .... it use to be the "Ugly American". Being boisterous, prideful, braggarts, pompous prudes. .... putting down others. But in Canada's new found belief in itself and patriotism .... Canada sees it best America morally, to being a much more civilized Nation culturally and in loving one another equally. Unlike them overly competitive Americans.....
But sometimes it can just seem like this Ugly American syndrome ..... was adopted to the north more and more as America is lessened and seen as past its prime and becoming more inferior to its more ..... compassionate loving neighbors (neighbours) to the north.
The U.S. has been at war 222 out of 239 Years, with only 21 years at peace That is 93% of the time. Americans should ask themselves if their huge military budget and all these wars are necessary.
This is the kind of latter-day smugness that increasingly typifies the Canadian attitude toward your most important ally. One is tempted to counter that until you are willing to defend yourself, you should be grateful to the United States for shouldering that responsibility.
This is the kind of latter-day smugness that increasingly typifies the Canadian attitude toward your most important ally. One is tempted to counter that until you are willing to defend yourself, you should be grateful to the United States for shouldering that responsibility.
I see.
Which nation was the first one to come to your assistance on 9/11?
Which nation was the first one to advocate a NATO presence in Afghanistan, and which nation has lost more soldiers per capita than any other nation in the world there?
Which nation entered WWI years before the USA?
Which nation entered WWII years before the USA? (see a pattern here?)
Which nation allowed you to test your cruise missiles because it had a terrain similar to the USSR (Russia) when no other nation would let you?
Which nation allowed you to build and operate the DEW line so you could have advanced warning of a Russian attack?
Which nation allowed you to lay five eyes submarine cable in its territory to detect Soviet and Russian submarines?
Few years old but Canada is much better than the US
Just few: Much safer, less corrupt, lower crime rate, lower obesity rate, universal healthcare, cheap college tuition, generous paid parental leave, paid days off, using metric system, cleaner cities, less poverty, higher life expectancy, better food quality, its biggest cities more affordable than our biggest cities to live, better social safety net, better world reputation, better immigration system, etc.
This is the kind of latter-day smugness that increasingly typifies the Canadian attitude toward your most important ally. One is tempted to counter that until you are willing to defend yourself, you should be grateful to the United States for shouldering that responsibility.
Glad you didn't give into temptation.
One could counter that until you PROVE you've defended us rather than yourselves at any time in your history; perhaps your gratitude should flow north for having saved your embassy staffers, sheltered your thousands of overseas flight passengers desperate for a place to land while being deemed too great a threat to allow to land in their own country. Sending help to the U.S. on numerous occasions during natural disasters with it sometimes arriving before your own and all of these without one instance of the obverse ever being requested or offered.
What does your "most important" ally get in return; we get lyingly accused of being unfair in our trade practices and also to being a security threat because we sell you steel.
Where the rubber hits the road, Canada's actually done other than the mere hypothetical for the U.S. any number of times.
This is the kind of latter-day smugness that increasingly typifies the Canadian attitude toward your most important ally. One is tempted to counter that until you are willing to defend yourself, you should be grateful to the United States for shouldering that responsibility.
Talk about smugness....Defend us against what? The US does not defend us, nor do we need or want them to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
