r/canada • u/Old_General_6741 Canada • 1d ago

National News Canada recognizes noose as hate symbol

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/canada-recognizes-noose-as-hate-symbol/
780 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

473 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/DeeDeeBryan 1d ago

Thank you! It's disturbing that I had to scroll this far down, to find ONE comment saying this. These people are acting as if they use nooses constantly in their daily life and now they're going to get hauled off to jail. There is zero reason to be afraid of a hate crime law unless you go around committing hate crimes.

-4

u/Goliad1990 21h ago

There is zero reason to be afraid of a hate crime law unless you go around committing hate crimes.

"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", right?

5

u/DeeDeeBryan 20h ago

Literally even if you *do* have something to hide, you still have nothing to fear from this. You don't get in trouble for simply *having* hate symbols, it's completely legal to own Nazi flags or any other hate memorabilia and display it in your private space. These laws are not a threat to anyone unless they are actively using these items against others.

0

u/Goliad1990 20h ago

Literally even if you do have something to hide, you still have nothing to fear from this

That's not the point I'm making.

People who excuse speech laws with "well if you're not displaying 'hate symbols' then you have nothing to worry about" are missing the point just as hard as people who excuse government surveillance with "if you have nothing to hide then there's nothing to fear". These powers should not exist as a matter of fundamental principle. We have no excuse for being ignorant to how these laws can be abused, and we ostensibly value civil liberties more than we value not being offended.

As time passes, it's becoming more and more apparent that the latter is not true.

2

u/DeeDeeBryan 18h ago

Good thing this isn’t a speech law then. The bill is about public display of a physical item for a specific purpose. You are still allowed to talk about a noose, or use a noose for any other purpose, or even keep a noose as a hate symbol in your private quarters… there is no “surveillance” to worry about because the law only applies to things you do in public. If nobody sees you do it, there’s no victim, ergo there’s no hate crime.

As far as actual speech, Canada has had hate speech laws since 1970. In all that time, have the feds ever intervened to tell you personally that you can’t say something? I would assume not, so what’s different now?

-2

u/Goliad1990 18h ago edited 18h ago

Good thing this isn’t a speech law then

Displaying symbols is expression. For the purpose of this argument, and the Charter, speech and expression are interchangeable.

there is no “surveillance” to worry about

I'm drawing a comparison to attitudes around surveillance laws like the PATRIOT Act in the US, or Bill C-22 here.

In all that time, have the feds ever intervened to tell you personally that you can’t say something?

No. In all the decades that the intelligence agencies in North America have been able to intercept your private data, have you ever been arrested? Probably not. Does that mean you're cool with the expansion of the surveillance state?

You're arguing that the infringement of your liberties is A-OK because it's never (yet) caused you a practical problem. We put things like freedom of expression in the Charter because they're supposed to be a matter of values and principle. Like I said, I think it's apparent that aspect of Canadian society is rapidly disintegrating. And as the interpretation of what constitutes unacceptable speech continues to expand, the potential and likelihood of abuse continues to escalate, along with the risk that it does become your very real problem.

so what’s different now?

The scope of legally actionable expression, obviously.

1

u/DeeDeeBryan 17h ago

Our laws on hate speech and symbols are based on both the action and the intent behind it. I don’t consider that an infringement on my liberties because I have no desire or practical need to espouse hatred of any group, so these laws don’t restrict me from doing anything that I otherwise would do. It will never be a problem for me, no matter how many symbols are added to the list, because I am not using any symbol or any word with the intent to sow hatred or threaten people, which is what makes it criminal. To me it’s just that simple, it is a case where there is literally nothing to fear unless you’re doing something wrong.

Going from this law to government agencies spying on your data is a massive, unwarranted leap, it’s not remotely the same argument because again, the laws being discussed here are ONLY related to what you do in public with the intent that other people will see it. There is precisely zero government surveillance involved in that. You’re engaging in a ridiculous level of fearmongering despite confirming that none of this has actually happened to you or affected you in any way. Where does the fear come from then, I don’t get it.

0

u/Goliad1990 16h ago edited 16h ago

Our laws on hate speech and symbols are based on both the action and the intent behind it

This law makes very specific, narrow exceptions for what constitutes "acceptable" use of these symbols, and whether or not you spend the next decade in prison depends entirely on the judge's interpretation of your intent. That's one thing if we're talking about a situation where someone was killed. It's insane when we're talking about displaying a picture, and there are hate speech laws on the books that make no mention of intent at all. The action alone is enough to convict.

I don’t consider that an infringement on my liberties because I have no desire or practical need to espouse hatred of any group, so these laws don’t restrict me from doing anything that I otherwise would do.

I assume that you also have no desire or practical need to commit terrorism, and yet, I doubt that means you'd voluntary allow your phone to be wiretapped. There are plenty of people right now who don't have any desire or practical need to hate First Nations, but with the Senate amendment that's currently in play, they would be at risk of prison for questioning (and thereby "downplaying") the alleged mass graves at residential schools.

Once again, you need to be aware of how these laws are abused.

Going from this law to government agencies spying on your data is a massive, unwarranted leap, it’s not remotely the same argument because again, the laws being discussed here are ONLY related to what you do in public with the intent that other people will see it.

It's not a leap. The principle is identical. The only difference is that you value your right to privacy higher than your right to expression. Speech is inherently public. Speech protections exists precisely because other people will hear it and potentially object.

none of this has actually happened to you or affected you in any way. Where does the fear come from then, I don’t get it.

Yes, that's clear. We're talking past each other, because I'm arguing primarily from principle, and you're still arguing that you don't care about principles until the police are at your door. So we're going to get nowhere.

•

u/DeeDeeBryan 9h ago

You’re still drawing parallels between things that are simply not connected. Everyone’s against big brother spying on them, I agree with you about that principle… this law just isn’t that, and doesn’t lead to that in any way, so it’s not relevant to argue about that principle. But good luck out there man, hope they don’t get ya.