Harper omnibus crime bill an attack on our freedom of speech
Under Harper new proposed law a hyperlink on the wrong blog or site could cost you 2 years in jail.
Here's the story:
"The bill plans to make it a crime to link to any website that promotes hatred.
Here’s what the Library of Parliament says about the bill on its website:“Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example.”
For simply posting a link to a website that has material someone else deems hateful, you could go to jail for two years and be branded a criminal.
The Internet police. Only in Canada.
This isn’t about protecting people from genocide or even threats of death, the way the law is written now is much broader.
“Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty.”
There’s also the sticky question of who decides what is hateful?
Will websites promoting Israeli Apartheid Week, now a staple on university campuses across Canada, land someone in jail? What about web postings on the Armenian genocide which the Armenians blame the Turks for but which the Turks dispute?
This is a ridiculous proposal that has no place in a country that claims to cherish freedom of expression."
Source:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/05/05/lilley-tory-crime-bill-an-attack-on-our-liberty
yeah, this is ridiculous. We're going nuts rights now as a country trying to stop people from saying things "we" don't like.
we spend way too much time trying to protect ourselves and others from anything that might be deemed "offensive" like we have some innate right to not be offended. isn't freedom of speech all about the right to say something, even if it is "offensive"?
these days, freedom of speech/expression seems to be defined by the cultural norms of the day as opposed to drawing the line at when it becomes a incitement to direct violence or harm, which to me is where the line should be drawn.
Was good ole Tom Flanigan promoting hatred when he suggested sending a missile to kill the wiki leaks guy?
That pretty much is where it's drawn, as far as criminal hate speech is concerned.
But even when speech isn't criminally hate speech, someone who feels offended can still go to the HRC and frame their offense as a human rights issue (right to not be offended?). Familiar examples might include the Danish Cartoons/Ezra Levant, or Macleans magazine/Mark Steyn. Somehow I doubt the Conservatives are going to give the HRC any new teeth.
If the bill passes, Rabble.ca would effectively become responsible and liable for the content of each and every website linked to.
Is "don't link to hate sites" too obvious a solution?
Not when "hate sites" is code for pro-Palestine sites.
Well, from what little is out there, it's not really clear whether this refers to "hate crimes", which have a fairly narrow interpretation and scope, or "Section 13" type complaints, which don't fall under the criminal code.
If it's the former then it shouldn't really be a problem. Why would a babbler link to ANY website that promotes violence against humans?
If it's the latter then I suppose it could be a problem. That said, anyone who cheered on the HRC when they were going after Levant or Steyn should really endorse this change, given that their idea of "hate" can include political cartoons. Presumably they'd like to see the bar lowered.
And, of course, the hate-site list can include anything they want, expand as much as they want and be changed every day, without notice. So, all discussion fora are fair game - though i suspect very few will be targeted. It's a predictable (in fact, i predicted it three days ago) step toward shutting down political dissent.
babblers have been (rightly) called on the carpet if they inadvertently link out to (say) sites with a bit of a "white supremacy" thing going on. Is it really that much harder to take a second to see if the site you're linking to promotes violence?
You raise an important issue, Snert. In a sense, we open the door to censorship ourselves. Drawing attention to a hate site, or a supremacist site, whether it advocates violence or not, is not inherently wrong and should not be unacceptable. Do we not want to know what is being said or planned? Obviously, the spirit in which the link is made is a consideration for babblers, but the principle is what needs to be protected. In your earlier post, Snert, you hit the nail on the head and somehow got off track in No. 9.
Le T and absentia correctly draw attention to the potential manipulation of such a law. Any link, say, to a Tamil human rights site or a site promoting a Palestinian cause that the CJC may consider offensive, or a site advocating for the sovereignty of Libya against NATO intervention, etc. --- any number of issues, really, EVEN those critical of state terrorism -- could become illegal. How violence is defined for reasons of state remains the central issue, IMHO.
This can't be allowed. Please link to actions being organized to defeat this bill.
Just a thought. Given Ezra's problem with the HRT and the theme that seems to be developing in the White's Right movement of Canadian right wingers that Human Rights Tribunals are evil censors. Are we going to see a campaign by the Harpers to make life uncomfotable for those who present critical view points (e.g. Israeli Apartheid)? That way in three years, after they fine rabble.ca and the Tyee, they can say "ok, fair is fair, we'll get rid of this crime legislation and the (funding for) HRTs so that speech can be free".
Just for clarification: Does this bill expand the ideological definiton of what constitutes hate speech(ie. it's been expanded to include ideas not included before), or does it just expand the definition to include another form of medium(ie. you can get arrested for linking to sites that promote hate, but the ideas considered hateful remain the same)?
Is the state currently shutting down those sites as "hate sites"?
Babblers have been endorsing Libyans fighting back against NATO since the uprising began. Is babble being shut down for this?
If it's OK for babble to endorse Libyans fighting back against NATO, I really can't imagine that some other site, linking to babble, could then be prosecuted for "linking to a hate site".
It would be like charging Bob for being an accomplice to robbery with Joe, but then NOT charging Joe with robbery. Say huh??
I doubt there will be many prosecutions under this proposed clause. I'm sure it will be reserved for the most egregious cases.
Well, of course. Naturally. Goes without saying. And the police who come to the door of egregious offenders will do so at 7:30 pm, knock politely, speak softly, make no unnecessary physical contact, show their stamped warrants and abide by all rules of procedure, etiquette, good taste and sensibility. Only tro be expected.
I have to wonder. Was anyone here complaining about the hate laws as they originally stood BEFORE this legislation was introduced? Because as has been pointed out, all this law really seems to do is expand the existing definition of "posting hate" to include not only producing a hateful website, but also linking to a hateful website.
Basically, if you were happy that the government was prosecuting neo-nazi webmaters, you should be even happier now, because they're going after people who distribute(via links) access to those websites.
In the OP, Red Fox wrote:
'There's also the sticky question of who decides what is hateful?"
But this was always an issue with the hate-laws. Civil libertarians have been arguing for decades now that the concept of "promoting hate" is too open-ended, and could be harnessed against progressives just as easily as against reactionaries. But the left in general didn't seem to care too much about these concerns, and anyone advancing the civil-liberties argument got shouted down with the quote about fire in a movie theatre that Oliver Wendell Holmes used to justify locking up socialists.
Just to clarify my point:
It IS possible that, under a right-wing regime, the government or the courts could define "hate" to include pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli writings. But this was always a risk that progressives were running when they endorsed the hate laws. It's not really related to the issue of regulating hyperlinks, which could happen no matter what defintion of "hate" was being employed.
Anyone linkng to a site that features the views of anti-Arab hatemonger Jason Kenney ought to be jailed.
Exactly. We want -- nay, NEED -- a Section 13, in order that bad little men like Ezra Levant can be punished for publishing old cartoons, but this incredibly loose definition of "hate" must never apply to us!
For the record, i have always been deeply suspicious of hate laws.
Defining crime by motive was always a bad idea - far too open to interpretation and unnecessary. Either you hurt somebody or you didn't. If you hurt somebody, what's it matter whether you did it because he's an albino, an old school bully or a rich uncle?
Under a much-too-powerful right-wing government, the latitude of interpretation and the mechanism of enforcement become that much more dangerous.
All crime is defined by motive. Without a mens rea you have no guilt.
I would say more than possible given that Harper has a slew of Supreme Court nominations coming his way and that anti-Palestinian politics seems to have a lot of support in this racist settler colony of ours.
Well, can we all agree then that it would have been a good thing all those years for the Left to be fighting for the abolition of the hate-speech laws?
I'm not a fan of hate speech laws myself. I'm also a white man. I think that it is just a bandaid solution that takes attention away from the fact that "hate" is systemic and actively cultivated in more covert ways.
Okay, so no more Section 13? The HRC goes back to concerning itself with bigoted landlords and discrimination in the workplace?
Yes? No?
Hate crime laws call for higher sentences based on the victim being targeted for being who they are.
Hate speech laws are necessary the real question is what is the criteria to trigger their application. If I shout bomb in an airport most people now accept that I will be arrested and have my ass hauled off to jail. I think that if I scream Kill the _______ there should also be some sanction against me.
To me hate crimes are as valid as having a separate section of the Criminal Code for assaulting a police officer. I mean isn't assault just assault. What does either hate or a badge have to do with assault?
accident
So, like, a guy is lying on the ground, dead, with a knife in his back. Natural causes? No. Suicide? Highly improbable. Homicide? Very likely. That's a crime, whether you ever find a culprit or not, whether you ever discover the reason or not.
Motive doesn't define a crime. Motive is merely one of the factors (along with means and opportunity) considered when searching out the culprit. Establishing motive is one of the factors (along with physical evidence and witness accounts) in obtaining a guilty verdict.
I don't see why the same act should be judged as more or less serious, depending on why the victim was chosen. A rapist may hate all women or just be angry at one particular woman, or maybe even believe he's in love with his victim. What if you can't figure out which? What if the rapist doesn't even know himself? And if you decide it's the last, rather than the first motive, does the victim suffer less?
And the same goes for assaulting a police officer. (Actually, that's very often a bogus charge anyway.)
That is why for hate crimes there must be evidence to tie it to hate. Shouting I hate fags as you beat the crap our of someone seems to me to be pretty compelling evidence that it is a hate crime. That is the type of evidence our courts require to deem anything a hate crime and increase the sentence.
It doesn't change the verdict or decrease the onus of proving the guilt of the accused. It comes into play when deciding what sentence to give someone. Just as prior records and lack of remorse and the impact on the victim are also taken into account. Some criminals deserve longer sentences. If hate is your motivation then as a society we have the right to increase your sentence to protect the people you hate. after all it is they who have committed no crime except the crime of being themselves.
Correct. I didn't say that without mens rea you have no crime, I said you have no guilt. To be guilty of a crime you must have had intent to commit that crime. Ergo, the courts judge intent every day.
That said, I think we may be blurring the lines regarding hate crimes (eg: killing a person for being Asian) and hate speech (eg: earnestly inciting others to kill Asians). And then there's the whole Section 13 business, that is neither a hate crime, nor hate speech.
Well put.