52
What does bill c9 mean for my Baphomet decal? (europe.pub)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Can this decal get me into actual legal trouble?

In the last 15 years I've been left angry notes, my tires deflated, and I've been keyed. Can someone accuse this as hate speech under the new bill?

I'm sure this is protected under the charter but I just want to say I seriously HATE this hate speech bill. What a load of garbage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Hate speech is pretty narrowly defined. Unless there's tiny print there that says "kill all the Dutch" you should be good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Hate speech is not narrowly defined. It is barely defined. C-9 doesn't even need hate speech.

    The proposed amendments in the Bill would create four new criminal offences: (1) an intimidation offence that prohibits conduct that is intended to provoke a state of fear in another person to impede them from accessing religious or cultural institutions and other specified places

    Those of us old enough to remember the satanic panic will remember a lot of pearl clutching christians who can easily be provoked to a state of fear that would impede them from accessing religious or cultural institutions and other specified places.

    Whether someone intended to provoke such pearl clutching is a matter of interpretation. And pearl clutters have a proven track record of getting interpretations in their favour - no matter how much evidence indicates otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    So, right off the bat, there's the law as it is, and then what people can stretch the law into as you slide towards fascism. On this side of the border I expect rule of law to hold, at least in the medium term. If you were in the US my answer might be very different.

    Per the charter you have to target an identifiable group directly, and by past precedent, it seems like you have to specifically incite genocide. A lot of people get away with stopping just short, or even going all the way, but only online or in semi-private. The main successful prosecution I can think of was a guy openly leaving neonazi swastika pamphlets on people's doors.

    IANAL, but that specific offence cited is pretty clearly about attacking places of worship. If you drive up on a church lawn and park across the entry walkway you might have a problem. Otherwise, you're just declaring affiliation with a different, hostile religious group, and that's your business. It's like an evangelical with a sticker against praying to saints, basically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    It was narrowly defined. Not anymore with this bill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (2 children)

    If only, basically.

    As far as I can the places of worship thing is the only expansion of what can be prosecuted. The rest is just about making it easier to prosecute. You can still say all gays belong in prison and be fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    The bill, as it is written determines if a law was broken by how the aggrieved party feels. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •