M-103 has passed

[Rounoush]

Islamic blasphemy laws have started already. The fact that this motion even got to this point is unbelievable. A clear attack on free speech.

 

If virtue signalling were a country, it would be Canada.

[Warhippy]

What people fail to understand know or remember is that a law similar to this was already passed.

 

harper enacted laws very similar to the Lellouche laws in France hidden within Bill C-13 making it an actual crime to deny not only the holocaust but to also single out or criticize Israel or judaism.  As per the BDS issues in the past and his speech to the Knesset and to the UN

 

These laws also go on to protect any and all religions or minorities after changes were made.

 

This passing motion is literally worthless and a waste of tax dollars and as per the original article, if parliament expects themselves to somehow be or pretend to be canada's moral compass.  They've a LONG way to go to clean themselves up to even pretend to be able to do that.

 

Worthless wastes of skin in Ottawa........

[Ryan Strome]

15 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Really?

 

See Bill C-13 by the Harper Government 2014/2015.

 

If you think this is new territory....

You need to get your facts straight my friend.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/anti-cyberbullying-law-bill-c-13-now-in-effect-1.2270460

 

Bill c13 was good legislation.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Down by the River said:

Pretty terrible to create a law without first clearly establishing what constitutes a violation of said law...

Its not a law. its a motion. 

 

And the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't include allowing racism or hate speech, it never has. I'm not sure why people are losing their nut over this. 

[Ryan Strome]

4 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

Its not a law. its a motion. 

 

And the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't include allowing racism or hate speech, it never has. I'm not sure why people are losing their nut over this. 

Criticizing religion is not hate speech. Not sure why this has to be said so much.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Criticizing religion is not hate speech. Not sure why this has to be said so much.

It is if its actually hateful and/or incites hate. 

 

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) 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

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

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

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html

[Ryan Strome]

16 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

What people fail to understand know or remember is that a law similar to this was already passed.

 

harper enacted laws very similar to the Lellouche laws in France hidden within Bill C-13 making it an actual crime to deny not only the holocaust but to also single out or criticize Israel or judaism.  As per the BDS issues in the past and his speech to the Knesset and to the UN

 

These laws also go on to protect any and all religions or minorities after changes were made.

 

This passing motion is literally worthless and a waste of tax dollars and as per the original article, if parliament expects themselves to somehow be or pretend to be canada's moral compass.  They've a LONG way to go to clean themselves up to even pretend to be able to do that.

 

Worthless wastes of skin in Ottawa........

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Canadians_from_Online_Crime_Act

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

It is if its actually hateful and/or incites hate. 

 

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) 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

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

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

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html

Yup but criticizing a religion or religion all together is not illegal.

[Salmonberries]

The province of BC has imposed restrictions on free speech in it's Human Rights Code for a couple of decades now. People have been getting fined for making their uncomfortable thoughts public here for twenty odd years now. Sadly, this only reinforces the kindergarten safe speech playground environment we've all been living in here for a long time now. For a guy that apparently doesn't even believe that Canada or Canadians even exist, Justine sure does seem to like to put his thumb on our eyes.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Yup but criticizing a religion or religion all together is not illegal.

Of course not. I personally can't stand evangelicals e.g, and saying that isn't inciting hate, its just my personal opinion. But if I went on to say things that were trying to incite others to hate on this group, then you'd have a case.

 

103 is symbolic and has the legal weight of a CDC post. Its not worth the time or posturing. Its misleading for the CPC to be acting like this is a "law" or somehow infringes on free speech. 

[Green Building]

12 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

What people fail to understand know or remember is that a law similar to this was already passed.

 

harper enacted laws very similar to the Lellouche laws in France hidden within Bill C-13 making it an actual crime to deny not only the holocaust but to also single out or criticize Israel or judaism.  As per the BDS issues in the past and his speech to the Knesset and to the UN

 

These laws also go on to protect any and all religions or minorities after changes were made.

 

This passing motion is literally worthless and a waste of tax dollars and as per the original article, if parliament expects themselves to somehow be or pretend to be canada's moral compass.  They've a LONG way to go to clean themselves up to even pretend to be able to do that.

 

Worthless wastes of skin in Ottawa........

I was listening to CBC yesterday morning and Bob Ray was a guest who briefly discussed the current and complicated issue of aboriginal difficulties in Canada. I thought he nailed it in the few minutes he had. I know there are many many issues that federal governments need to address throughout their tenure in office, but I'd have been happier if we did more for our aboriginal peoples instead of making time for this. Maybe this motion is supposed to be viewed as some sort of symbol or moral deterrent?

 

 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Salmonberries said:

The province of BC has imposed restrictions on free speech in it's Human Rights Code for a couple of decades now. People have been getting fined for making their uncomfortable thoughts public here for twenty odd years now. Sadly, this only reinforces the kindergarten safe speech playground environment we've all been living in here for a long time now. For a guy that apparently doesn't even believe that Canada or Canadians even exist, Justine sure does seem to like to put his thumb on our eyes.

Just an FYI - Canada has never actually had free speech laws like the US has. Its a common misconception. 

[Green Building]

8 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

It is if its actually hateful and/or incites hate. 

 

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) 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

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

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

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html

I think that's exactly the semantic grey area people tend to skirt around. In my mind criticism =/= hate speech. There are ways to criticize without being hateful, but not necessarily not being spiteful and intolerant. It's a tricky navigation.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Green Building said:

I was listening to CBC yesterday morning and Bob Ray was a guest who briefly discussed the current and complicated issue of aboriginal difficulties in Canada. I thought he nailed it in the few minutes he had. I know there are many many issues that federal governments need to address throughout their tenure in office, but I'd have been happier if we did more for our aboriginal peoples instead of making time for this. Maybe this motion is supposed to be viewed as some sort of symbol or moral deterrent?

 

 

Bingo. Thats all it is. The Liberals wasted time on it, probably hoping the CPC would look hateful fighting against it. 

 

I'm with you, I'd much prefer they spend way more time on aboriginal issues than this stuff. 

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

Of course not. I personally can't stand evangelicals e.g, and saying that isn't inciting hate, its just my personal opinion. But if I went on to say things that were trying to incite others to hate on this group, then you'd have a case.

 

103 is symbolic and has the legal weight of a CDC post. Its not worth the time or posturing. Its misleading for the CPC to be acting like this is a "law" or somehow infringes on free speech. 

This is sometimes how things start. Like Maxime Bernier said if the Liberals go any further with this he will repeal it in 2019.

 

 

Btw remember our bet?

[Salmonberries]

Just now, S'all Good Man said:

Just an FYI - Canada has never actually had free speech laws like the US has. Its a common misconception. 

I know. I recall quite vividly our pre constitutional era. The major difference as far as I can tell between then and now ids that elected officials were able to craft legislation without having it challenged and struck down by appointed judges. I greatly preferred it to be honest. Hell, I still like the red ensign better than the maple leaf flag. That was another hot debate that the (red) Liberals won. As they did most everything else.

[JM_]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

This is sometimes how things start. Like Maxime Bernier said if the Liberals go any further with this he will repeal it in 2019.

 

 

Btw remember our bet?

 

Oh right! Yah i think I said Maxime wouldn't get in the nod over Kevin - thats right isn't it? 

 

I don't know how you "repeal" a motion.... make a motion saying you don't like the original motion? So wasting time over wasting time?

 

[JM_]

Just now, Salmonberries said:

I know. I recall quite vividly our pre constitutional era. The major difference as far as I can tell between then and now ids that elected officials were able to craft legislation without having it challenged and struck down by appointed judges. I greatly preferred it to be honest. Hell, I still like the red ensign better than the maple leaf flag. That was another hot debate that the (red) Liberals won. As they did most everything else.

Ah OK, a lot of folks think we have the nearly 'anything goes' type of speech laws the US has. 

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

Oh right! Yah i think I said Maxime wouldn't get in the nod over Kevin - thats right isn't it? 

 

I don't know how you "repeal" a motion.... make a motion saying you don't like the original motion? So wasting time over wasting time?

 

No if it goes past a motion he will repeal it.

 

Ya you said O'clown and I said Bernier. Bernier has been leading for weeks now. Although leadership conventions can give surprises..

[Warhippy]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You need to get your facts straight my friend.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/anti-cyberbullying-law-bill-c-13-now-in-effect-1.2270460

 

Bill c13 was good legislation.

You need to look a little deeper my friend.  

 

Advocates of free speech and Palestinian rights are preparing to fight a change to hate speech laws that they say will silence critics of Israel.

The change is buried in Bill C-13, the government’s proposed cyberbullying law.

The bill would expand the definition of groups that can be the subject of hate propaganda under the Criminal Code. The code now lists people distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Bill C-13 adds age, sex and mental or physical disability. But, most contentiously, it also adds national origin.

Some legal experts say this is likely a mere housecleaning amendment to bring the Criminal Code in line with the wording of other statutes.

 

This bill was tabled immediately following Harpers address to the Knesset in 2014.  Which is exactly why  so many people keyed in to it after Harper addressed anti semitism and the new face of semetic hatred and "anti zionism"  as the bill was already tabled prior to this visit and speech but then amended to include the "country of origin" people rightfully jumped on it.

 

These changes also infringe on freedom of speech in a way this motion doesn't as this IS in fact law but...nobody seems to understand the difference.  So while Bill C-13 seems to be a very good law (and in actuality it is) when people sit and whinge about this simple motion, they need to understand which is the more egregious when speaking of a loss of freedoms of speech.