The part that really got me was where you said "where we're losing the opportunity for clear and good faith conversation". My hope is that there might be a change in government soon and the bill will die of "no JT to push it through".
I just discovered this channel and I find it very informative and interesting. I'm glad to see this type of information being provided. If I was to suggest a topic that I think is relevant and interesting to me. Would be the topic of neighbours spying on neighbors. Both on and off the internet and what the Canadian legal system has to say about it. I personally believe it's something that is more common than people generally realize. Any, I like your content and look forward to seeing more of your videos.
Stop pretending our court system is Just. It is a Joke. Look at what is going on with the trucker protest. Canadian law must stop following WEF rules. Until then. Every Canadian is in danger. Your advice is moot.
can you do a vid on the pre crime portion of it. where if they think you will commit hate speech without having yet done it, you will be fined and or incarcerated. ty
That can change at any minute once the laws are in place. That might as well be just a strategy to deter people from protesting and later pretending people agreed because nobody protested.
Toronto Pearson tried trafficking me while I was travelling on a paid ticket (legally as a PR on merit with no criminal or medical or even mental health history- was never told why) and then took me to General Etobicoke Hospital/William Osler and I was locked without consent/ made to sleep in handcuffs/locked in a room with no bathroom and just a camera etc and no explanation was given to me till my family pressured the police and got me out. Is there any recourse available to me
In any case, the problem is that a stranger on the other side of the country, who doesn’t like you, can accuse you - possibly even anonymously - of hatespeech and you end up being the one having to pay lawyers to try and prove that you didn’t mean it that way -
Thanks for the comment. I specifically wanted to keep the discussion at a more general level to avoid having the legal discussion potentially overshadowed by the current political debates, including demonstrations, marches and the like.
No. It has to fit in the definition of "identifiable group", which doesn't include membership in political party or political views: "(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability."
That's a baseless opinion, not a fact, not even an argument. All it's good for is hearing yourself speak. Maybe it's true, but it's not evident that you know it's true, rather than just assume it is.
non sequitur. being a natural emotion and having a purpose (like homicidal rage is a natural emotion with a purpose) has nothing to do with whether ACTING on that emotion should be punishable.
Regarding the plural "statements", does that exclude a single statement only, i.e., there would have to be more than one statement? Just wondering, maybe it's plural to exclude a statement made by mistake.
No common citizen anywhere in the world enjoys absolute freedom of expression. There are always things you can say that are illegal. Such as fraud, threats, harassment, etc etc etc. If hate crimes curtail your freedom of expression, so does literally every other law that restricts what you can do.
@@Barnaclebeard free speech includes hate speech and giving people life in prison for free speech is how tyrants rule. Satire is like food, not everyone gets it
I don't understand why the law specifically says anti semitism. Would that not be covered as a identifiable group ? Another question, is it illegal to sympathize with a Palestinian who's upset the Israelis killed his family but not illegal to cheer the Israelis on ? Being specific like that appears to give more rights to one race over every other race.
Thanks for your comment. S. 319(2.1), the wilful promotion of antisemitism, was added to the Criminal Code very recently, in a budget bill so that it did not get much attention or debate. To my knowledge, it hasn't been considered by a court. I'm not even sure if there have been any charges under that section. While related, it's a different offence compared to the others discussed and would require the same type of justification to be upheld as consistent with the Charter. The "Charter Statement" for the bill is here, and you'll want to look for "Part 5, Division 21" to find the section. This will give you a sense of the government's arguments for Charter compliance. www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c19_2.html
@@privacylawyer I read that section you referenced. That raises a whole new concern in law. It shifts the burden of proof from accuser to accused, meaning you are guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty. That is not a rabbit hole any free and democratic society wants to go down. I would expect that type of law in Nazi germany, Russia, or North Korea but not Canada.
Yes, the burden of proving the truth of the statement, to use as a defence, is shifted to the defendant. This is only after the Crown has proven all the other elements beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Keegstra case, the SCC looked at a similar reverse onus and found it was consistent with the Charter. Here's the decision, and just search in the document for "reverse onus" and you'll find the discussion: canlii.ca/t/1fsr1
@@Barnaclebeard lol....so poignant remark...well blame it on the institutional willful ignorance of the canadian disneyland residing in ottawa. yoga pants folks running the affairs of our country ....as it it were another yoga exercise session. truth of the matter is the religious nature of the palestinian society is very ugly and dismaying to a westwrn european myself included..on the other hand the state sponsored israeli banditry against palestinians origin inhabitants for more than half a century is a huge ongoing crime in broad day light . sickening indeed Kalimera to all the civilised people outthere best wishes from Kalamata. Zeus Akhbar !
Please tell me how a private class of people called lawyers completely control the legal system makes sense? You get to make laws on behalf of your clients so they can use government force to get rich. That is the definition of hate.
@@walterbrownstone8017 So if it isn't hate, that means it is love? Do you think this moronic sophistry will convince anyone who doesn't already want to be lied to?
I think this presentation is extremely naive and misleading as to the dangers of these laws. Contrary to what the video suggests, hate can mean anything. The laws are so subjective that they can be an instrument of the powerful. In Nigeria, a woman was just sentenced to 7 years & 3 million dollars for criticizing a certain brand of tomato paste on Facebook (th-cam.com/video/kUAH3WcqOAw/w-d-xo.html). There should be no hate crime laws in Canada. Our hate laws are terrible laws that will be abused by the powerful. Furthermore, our right to free speech is very weak in Canada and is subject to the arbitrary determination of the powerful. The right to free speech in Canada is nowhere near as strong as it is in the USA. These hate laws must not stand.
@@Barnaclebeard The video would suggest NO however I suggest YES. The Nigerian case is an example of how anything can be a hate crime and that crime is used as a weapon. And the power of the weapon in Canada is the threat of LIFE in prison. This is not a walk in the park.
Man I hate politicians.
LIFE FOR YOU
Lol. I don’t hate them. I hate how dumb some are.
Thank you again for your level-headed and clear explanation.
You're welcome!
Thank you very much for your information i am learning and researching alot 👍🇨🇦💯
The part that really got me was where you said "where we're losing the opportunity for clear and good faith conversation".
My hope is that there might be a change in government soon and the bill will die of "no JT to push it through".
Thank you for your clear and concise explanation.
Thanks. It’s better not to talk with strangers in Canada.
I just discovered this channel and I find it very informative and interesting. I'm glad to see this type of information being provided.
If I was to suggest a topic that I think is relevant and interesting to me. Would be the topic of neighbours spying on neighbors.
Both on and off the internet and what the Canadian legal system has to say about it. I personally believe it's something that is more common than people generally realize.
Any, I like your content and look forward to seeing more of your videos.
Very nice. Thank you.
Noticing the chosen ones is hate.
Birds and ants are chosen by the Creator.
Stop pretending our court system is Just. It is a Joke. Look at what is going on with the trucker protest. Canadian law must stop following WEF rules. Until then. Every Canadian is in danger. Your advice is moot.
can you do a vid on the pre crime portion of it. where if they think you will commit hate speech without having yet done it, you will be fined and or incarcerated. ty
Have you been to Toronto lately?None of those are being enforced absolutely zero in the existing criminal code
That can change at any minute once the laws are in place. That might as well be just a strategy to deter people from protesting and later pretending people agreed because nobody protested.
@GunterZochbauer these are already existing laws not ones that or being added yet no one does anything
Don't bother checking the Court Records online, I as the Appellant; was also forbidden from downloading any court files.
If I post a message on a social platform to all my friends instead of the general public, does it mean the message has been spread in public?
It probably depends on how many people are in the audience, and I'd expect it would have to be a large number to count as "in public".
The real question is who decides.
Toronto Pearson tried trafficking me while I was travelling on a paid ticket (legally as a PR on merit with no criminal or medical or even mental health history- was never told why) and then took me to General Etobicoke Hospital/William Osler and I was locked without consent/ made to sleep in handcuffs/locked in a room with no bathroom and just a camera etc and no explanation was given to me till my family pressured the police and got me out. Is there any recourse available to me
In any case, the problem is that a stranger on the other side of the country, who doesn’t like you, can accuse you - possibly even anonymously - of hatespeech and you end up being the one having to pay lawyers to try and prove that you didn’t mean it that way -
it would nice if you compared the law current events marches. demonstrations
Thanks for the comment. I specifically wanted to keep the discussion at a more general level to avoid having the legal discussion potentially overshadowed by the current political debates, including demonstrations, marches and the like.
Supreme Kangaroo Court of Banada #41094
Teachers and school programs with genodercide studies, or DEI or companies who promotes DEI, and then the MAID program.
A political party, such as the liberal party or portion thereof, would qualify as a group that can be considered targeted?
No. It has to fit in the definition of "identifiable group", which doesn't include membership in political party or political views: "(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability."
A free and open society doesn't have need for "hate speech" laws.
That's a baseless opinion, not a fact, not even an argument. All it's good for is hearing yourself speak. Maybe it's true, but it's not evident that you know it's true, rather than just assume it is.
Hate speech should not be a crime or be punishable by law. Hate is a natural human emotion and it has its purpose.
non sequitur. being a natural emotion and having a purpose (like homicidal rage is a natural emotion with a purpose) has nothing to do with whether ACTING on that emotion should be punishable.
Federal Court of Appeal #A-200-23
Regarding the plural "statements", does that exclude a single statement only, i.e., there would have to be more than one statement? Just wondering, maybe it's plural to exclude a statement made by mistake.
Any possible interpretation will always be against the honest tax payer already a victim. That is how dictatorship have always worked.
Hate Crime laws seem reasonable until you see how unreasonable those who define "hate" are.
Casting aspersions without making any claims that can be disproved. Standard FUD practice.
So could three seperate acts of blackface (a hateful and racist act) meet the definition of hate speech?
Obviously not retroactively in any case.
hate crime OR freedom of expression, cant have both.
No common citizen anywhere in the world enjoys absolute freedom of expression. There are always things you can say that are illegal. Such as fraud, threats, harassment, etc etc etc. If hate crimes curtail your freedom of expression, so does literally every other law that restricts what you can do.
Life in prison is a small price to pay for Democracy and freedom
Your sophistry is nonsensical.
@@Barnaclebeard I'm no wise man, but merely a person who loves wisdom.
@@Barnaclebeardyou're a weakling
@@martinbowman1993 "I'd rather be in prison than to not be free!" Wise words indeed.
@@Barnaclebeard free speech includes hate speech and giving people life in prison for free speech is how tyrants rule. Satire is like food, not everyone gets it
You should define what is meant by advocating
I don't think using the term "freedom" is really applicable in Canada.
Federal Court # T-2060-22
Honestly NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH ANYMORE IN CANADA??? HATE ISN'T ILLEGAL
I don't understand why the law specifically says anti semitism. Would that not be covered as a identifiable group ?
Another question, is it illegal to sympathize with a Palestinian who's upset the Israelis killed his family but not illegal to cheer the Israelis on ?
Being specific like that appears to give more rights to one race over every other race.
Thanks for your comment. S. 319(2.1), the wilful promotion of antisemitism, was added to the Criminal Code very recently, in a budget bill so that it did not get much attention or debate. To my knowledge, it hasn't been considered by a court. I'm not even sure if there have been any charges under that section. While related, it's a different offence compared to the others discussed and would require the same type of justification to be upheld as consistent with the Charter. The "Charter Statement" for the bill is here, and you'll want to look for "Part 5, Division 21" to find the section. This will give you a sense of the government's arguments for Charter compliance. www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c19_2.html
@@privacylawyer I read that section you referenced. That raises a whole new concern in law. It shifts the burden of proof from accuser to accused, meaning you are guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty. That is not a rabbit hole any free and democratic society wants to go down. I would expect that type of law in Nazi germany, Russia, or North Korea but not Canada.
Yes, the burden of proving the truth of the statement, to use as a defence, is shifted to the defendant. This is only after the Crown has proven all the other elements beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Keegstra case, the SCC looked at a similar reverse onus and found it was consistent with the Charter. Here's the decision, and just search in the document for "reverse onus" and you'll find the discussion: canlii.ca/t/1fsr1
Palestinians are also Semitic people.
@@Barnaclebeard
lol....so poignant remark...well blame it on the institutional willful ignorance of the canadian disneyland residing in
ottawa.
yoga pants folks running the affairs of our country ....as it it were another yoga exercise session.
truth of the matter is the religious nature of the palestinian society is very ugly and dismaying to a westwrn european myself included..on the other hand the state sponsored israeli banditry against palestinians origin inhabitants for more than half a century is a huge ongoing crime in broad day light . sickening indeed
Kalimera to all the civilised people outthere
best wishes from Kalamata.
Zeus Akhbar !
There is no hate speach there is only free speech and regulated speech full stop
It is antiwhiteism.
jews
^^^ White fragility.
Please tell me how a private class of people called lawyers completely control the legal system makes sense? You get to make laws on behalf of your clients so they can use government force to get rich. That is the definition of hate.
That is literally not the definition of hate.
@@Barnaclebeard Extortion is love, is it?
@@walterbrownstone8017 So if it isn't hate, that means it is love? Do you think this moronic sophistry will convince anyone who doesn't already want to be lied to?
@@Barnaclebeard Your have to be a moron to think slavery isn't motivated by hate.
@@Barnaclebeard You wrote a reply that explains nothing. Why would you do that? Tell me how extortion is not hate.
Have to be able to be identified hey?
Jackpot.
Every case closed haha
I think this presentation is extremely naive and misleading as to the dangers of these laws. Contrary to what the video suggests, hate can mean anything. The laws are so subjective that they can be an instrument of the powerful. In Nigeria, a woman was just sentenced to 7 years & 3 million dollars for criticizing a certain brand of tomato paste on Facebook (th-cam.com/video/kUAH3WcqOAw/w-d-xo.html). There should be no hate crime laws in Canada. Our hate laws are terrible laws that will be abused by the powerful. Furthermore, our right to free speech is very weak in Canada and is subject to the arbitrary determination of the powerful. The right to free speech in Canada is nowhere near as strong as it is in the USA. These hate laws must not stand.
Do the Canadian laws have whatever features allowed the Nigerian laws to be used in this manner?
@@Barnaclebeard The video would suggest NO however I suggest YES. The Nigerian case is an example of how anything can be a hate crime and that crime is used as a weapon. And the power of the weapon in Canada is the threat of LIFE in prison. This is not a walk in the park.
@@BrianMorse-if5po I suggest you are drawing wild conclusions from an irrelevant datapoint and a bunch of misinformation.
Head of Canadian Human Rights tribunal says Hate speech is subjective and is against new law: th-cam.com/video/Z0qBEGbCzJI/w-d-xo.html
Would all political groups be arrested who have groups and opinions 🤔 🙄 I have seen vilified on both sides. 😂 they hate and promote it.