WK thinks its bullshit, and he's mostly right. It would be really, really difficult to use CDN hate-speech laws to go after the BDS movement, for reasons he cites. And there is a long chain of inferences leading from the actual facts as stated in the CBC story to the writer's conclusions. But on the other hand, why would the ministry explain what "zero tolerance" of the BDS movement meant by referencing "a detailed list of Canada's updated hate laws"? That is rather odd.
PS. I had similar concerns as those expressed in the story a few years ago. I am enlightened in the comments section.
PPS. Reading the thing more closely, I note:
But in response to specific questions about what "zero tolerance" of BDS means, and how it will be enforced, Blaney aide Josee Sirois gave CBC News a much clearer picture of the government's intent.
"I can tell you that Canada has one of the most comprehensive sets of laws against hate crime anywhere in the world," wrote Sirois.
She highlighted what she termed "hate propaganda" provisions in the Criminal Code criminalizing the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, and further noted that "identifiable group" now includes any section of the public distinguished by "among other characteristics, religion or national or ethnic origin."
She also referred to Criminal Code provisions requiring that a judge consider hate, bias or prejudice when sentencing an offender.
"We will not allow hate crimes to undermine our way of life, which is based on diversity and inclusion," she concluded.
OK now that does sound as though the governments does intend to use our nation's hate speech laws as per the CBC story's assertion. If so, that's insane. It also won't work; the barriers to moving a case forward are incredibly high and the BDS movement simply does not employ the kind of extreme language that would make the cut.
Yes, criminalizing political conscience and dissent, how very fascist.
The strategy may be insane but then the CPC approach to constitutional law indicates sanity is not necessarily a lynchpin. Perhaps it's merely sabre rattling but many groups supporting a boycott aren't rich and a long legal fight wouldn't look very appetizing.
I don't like it.
I agree with Mike. We do ourselves no favours by ignoring the contempt this government has for liberal democracy. It bridles against laws that restrain it and it seethes at courts that uphold those laws. You want a good spot in cabinet - you must be willing to push the boundaries - of democracy, even decency.
Kinsella is a Harper conservative who just hasn't come out of the closet yet. His stance on Israel, C-51 and now this story speaks for itself. He self-identifies as a progressive but there's nothing remotely progressive to him.
Post a Comment