It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.Or through the Criminal Code of Canada which has three sections:
- Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide against an identifiable group;
- Section 319(1) makes it an offense to communicate statements in a public place that will incite hatred against an identifiable group, and thereby lead to a breach of the peace; and
- Section 319(2) makes it an offense to communicate statements, other than in private conversation, which willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.Read about the differences between the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act provision here.
In 2003, David Ahenakew, a First Nations politician, was charged by the Saskatchewan Justice Department (not the HRCs) with inciting hatred against Jewish groups when he justified these comments on the holocaust "That's why [Hitler] fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world" by saying "How else do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" He was convicted and fined $1,000, but the charge was later overturned.
The focus may be on the HRCs for now, but there is room in the Criminal Code for belligerent and aggressive groups to use the hate speech laws to continue to silence legitimate discussions. These hate speech laws are very much present, and are not simply gathering dust in some drawer.
Larsen states in this symposium (which focused purely on free speech) that we must repeal them. I have no law background, so I have no idea how possible this is.
The other solution is to reduce, and strategically remove, the group that is now most likely to put these laws into effect, which is the Muslim group. Even in Holland, it is the Muslims that are bringing Wilders to court.
I have maintained throughout Our Changing Landscape that the high levels of minority immigrant groups, who will cry "racism" and "discrimination" at opportune moments, will also continue to be problematic when it comes to the HRCs and the hate speech laws. So the aim should be to reduce immigrations levels in general.
Thus, the problem should be viewed as a combination of aggressive Muslim groups, high levels of non-white immigrants, and toxic hate crime laws. Larsen, with his ample experience with prominent counter-jihad individuals, should have provided a multi-faceted solution to the problem that includes the reduction of Muslim immigration. Currently, free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press cannot be discussed separately from the Muslim problem specifically, and the immigration problem in general.
