• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

Wayward DP said:
Show me an example of Feucht committing hate speech, as it is legally defined in Canada
Click to expand...

The time he said that all laws should be made by Christians (and said it in context that any reasonable person would understand to mean that the intent was to remove rights from.lgbt people) would probably qualify if it was put to the test here.
 
there is a super high bar for hate speech in Canada, doubt that makes the cut.

we also have religious freedom, for better or for worse
 
FYI here's the actual law:


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.
  • 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.
  • Wilful promotion of antisemitism
    (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
    • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
 
Wayward DP said:
there is a super high bar for hate speech in Canada, doubt that makes the cut.

we also have religious freedom, for better or for worse
Click to expand...

If a case was made against Feucht, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to take things he has said and done publicly (organizing boycotts against corps for supporting pride isn't "advocating"?) and then strip back the veneer of "I'm doing it for my children and I just love Christ" under questioning.

1753806828224.png

When you say things like that isolated...fine, not hate speech. But when you say shit like over and over again as part of a broader campaign whose stated goal is to have Christians writing all of the laws, if that's not advocating for the destruction of an identifiable group, you're just not paying attention. If someone has to openly say "and we're going to take the rights away from all of the fags and throw them in prison" before it passes the line of hate speech, we're fucked because these assholes have media training these days and the good stuff is all in the subtext.
 
But again, this is all besides the point as it pertains to municipal permits. If a municipality believes that there is a "risk to public safety" by approving the permit, they won't approve it. Super simple and doesn't require a 29 dollar an hour municipal clerk to make a ruling on what the meaning of hate speech is.
 
examples of what SCC says are not hate speech:

[195] Flyers F and G are identical, and are comprised mainly of a reprint of a page of the classified advertisements from a publication called Perceptions. Printed by hand in bold print at the top of the page are the words “Saskatchewan’s largest gay magazine allows ads for men seeking boys”. Although there were conflicting views expressed on whether the references in the ads in question to “any age”; “boys/men”; or “[y]our age . . . is not so relevant” were in fact a reference to men seeking children (as Mr. Whatcott meant to imply by his additional biblical reference), the true purpose and meaning of the personal ads are, for our purposes, irrelevant. Mr. Whatcott also added the handwritten words: “‘If you cause one of these little ones to stumble it would be better that a millstone was tied around your neck and you were cast into the sea’ Jesus Christ” and “[t]he ads with men advertising as bottoms are men who want to get sodomized. This shouldn’t be legal in Saskatchewan!”

[196] In my view, it cannot reasonably be found that Flyers F and G contain expression that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant context and circumstances, would find as exposing or likely to expose persons of same-sex orientation to detestation and vilification. Reproduction of the ads themselves, and the statement as to how the ads could be interpreted as “men seeking boys”, do not manifest hatred. The implication that the ads reveal men seeking underaged males, while offensive, is presented as Mr. Whatcott’s interpretation of what the ads mean. He insinuates that this is a means by which pedophiles can advertise for victims, but the expression falls short of expressing detestation or vilification in a manner that delegitimizes homosexuals. The expression, while offensive, does not demonstrate the hatred required by the prohibition.

LINK
 
MindzEye said:
If a case was made against Feucht, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to take things he has said and done publicly (organizing boycotts against corps for supporting pride isn't "advocating"?) and then strip back the veneer of "I'm doing it for my children and I just love Christ" under questioning.

View attachment 28169

When you say things like that isolated...fine, not hate speech. But when you say shit like over and over again as part of a broader campaign whose stated goal is to have Christians writing all of the laws, if that's not advocating for the destruction of an identifiable group, you're just not paying attention. If someone has to openly say "and we're going to take the rights away from all of the fags and throw them in prison" before it passes the line of hate speech, we're fucked because these assholes have media training these days and the good stuff is all in the subtext.
Click to expand...
our courts disagree with you and I prefer their current interpretation
 
MindzEye said:
But again, this is all besides the point as it pertains to municipal permits. If a municipality believes that there is a "risk to public safety" by approving the permit, they won't approve it. Super simple and doesn't require a 29 dollar an hour municipal clerk to make a ruling on what the meaning of hate speech is.
Click to expand...
and I think it's BS for municipalities to try and cancel events they have issued permits for under the guise of 'public safety' because they realized that they expect some of the speech at the event to be offensive
 
I think some of the stuff Feucht has said about gays and trans people in particular qualifies as hate speech.

At the same time though, I’m also not a lawyer that’s laser-focused on minutiae and on coming up with the strictest possible, letter-of-the-law interpretation of our hate speech and religious freedom laws for the benefit of shielding this fucking choade.

I think you’re failing to see the forest for the trees when that’s what you’re fixated on. That’s the game these fascists play—hide behind the rights and freedoms granted in a liberal democracy while seeking to completely dismantle them.
 
Wayward DP said:
examples of what SCC says are not hate speech:

[195] Flyers F and G are identical, and are comprised mainly of a reprint of a page of the classified advertisements from a publication called Perceptions. Printed by hand in bold print at the top of the page are the words “Saskatchewan’s largest gay magazine allows ads for men seeking boys”. Although there were conflicting views expressed on whether the references in the ads in question to “any age”; “boys/men”; or “[y]our age . . . is not so relevant” were in fact a reference to men seeking children (as Mr. Whatcott meant to imply by his additional biblical reference), the true purpose and meaning of the personal ads are, for our purposes, irrelevant. Mr. Whatcott also added the handwritten words: “‘If you cause one of these little ones to stumble it would be better that a millstone was tied around your neck and you were cast into the sea’ Jesus Christ” and “[t]he ads with men advertising as bottoms are men who want to get sodomized. This shouldn’t be legal in Saskatchewan!”

[196] In my view, it cannot reasonably be found that Flyers F and G contain expression that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant context and circumstances, would find as exposing or likely to expose persons of same-sex orientation to detestation and vilification. Reproduction of the ads themselves, and the statement as to how the ads could be interpreted as “men seeking boys”, do not manifest hatred. The implication that the ads reveal men seeking underaged males, while offensive, is presented as Mr. Whatcott’s interpretation of what the ads mean. He insinuates that this is a means by which pedophiles can advertise for victims, but the expression falls short of expressing detestation or vilification in a manner that delegitimizes homosexuals. The expression, while offensive, does not demonstrate the hatred required by the prohibition.

LINK
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point on Feucht. He's publicly advocating for the broad hatred of homosexuals and the removal of their rights. He just says it in somewhat coded language usually. He's not speaking about specific acts of homosexual sex (which appears to be the case in what you've posted), but about the entire "identifiable group".
 
Feucht is free to take the city to court if he thinks his rights have been infringed. So are the organizers.

Meanwhile, let’s learn a lesson from our southern neighbours who have seen this kind of hatred deepen and fester when it’s been given a bullhorn without restriction.
 
Wayward DP said:
and I think it's BS for municipalities to try and cancel events they have issued permits for under the guise of 'public safety' because they realized that they expect some of the speech at the event to be offensive
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be "under the guise of" instead of "legitimately believe there is a risk to"?

If there is a legitimate risk of protest, counter protest and other public disruption, why issue a permit? Cities have limited resources, when you issue a permit knowing that you might have to send a significant portion of your active police resources to maintain the peace, why the fuck would you issue the permit?
 
Wayward DP said:
there is a super high bar for hate speech in Canada, doubt that makes the cut.

we also have religious freedom, for better or for worse
Click to expand...
If enough people vow to show up to wherever he performs with pitchforks and torches in hand, the public safety angle will kill the permit application. If he needs to be hounded out of the country by an angry mob, so be it. No quarter for Christofascists.
 
I hope he claps

iu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top