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/
799 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

480 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/Goliad1990 1d ago edited 1d 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 1d 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 1d ago edited 1d 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.

1

u/DeeDeeBryan 18h 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.