HATE CRIME SERIES – 7

HATE SPEECH 

 We know from general definition that hate crime is a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. We also know that a hate crime law is a law intended to also deter bias-motivated violence. But hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in the United States where hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a specific category of speech. U.S. hate speech laws that exist are mainly in conflict with the first amendment right to freedom of speech, so they have repeatedly been overturned as unconstitutional. But, what about here in Canada?  Well, the first time someone was charged with hate speech over the internet occurred on 27 March 1996. “A Winnipeg teenager was arrested by the police for sending an email to a local political activist that contained the message ‘Death to homosexuals’ it’s prescribed in the Bible! Better watch out next Gay Pride Week.’ (Nairne, 1996).” That was over ten years ago and a lot has taken place since needing our consideration.

THE LAW SURROUNDING HATE SPEECH INTERNATIONALLY

In most countries hate speech is not considered a legal term, but it is generally considered speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of such attributes as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. In some countries however, hate speech is speech, a gesture or conduct, writing, or a display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. But like all other matters the United Nations General Assembly is trying to tell the world how it must conduct itself in relationship to hate speech and hate/bias crime.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966, and in force from 23 March 1976. It commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to lifefreedom of religion, freedom of speechfreedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. As of April 2014, the Covenant has 74 signatories and 168 parties.

The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (a separate body to the United Nations Human Rights Council), which reviews regular reports of States parties on how the rights are being implemented. States must report initially one year after acceding to the Covenant and then whenever the Committee requests (usually every four years). The Committee normally meets in Geneva and normally holds three sessions per year.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism. On 3 May 2011, Michael O’Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of “hate speech” do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20. Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.”

However, for many outside observers, the term “hate speech” is simply viewed as a ‘politically correct’ expression used to intimidate or silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented by politicians in a rush to appear politically correct. In modern usage, the term politically correct language, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. Special interest groups often push the idea of there being necessary ‘political correctness’ and ‘politically correct speech’ in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination; and as part of a broader advancing of their own cultural objectives. Political policies that reinforce ‘political correctness’ are usually excessively weighted in favor of the minority of concern as opposed to the rights of the majority they are supposed to be a homogeneous part of.

A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums that emphasize a particular viewpoint. An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages. They differ from chat rooms in that messages are often longer than one line of text and are at least temporarily archived. Also, depending on the access level of a user or the forum set-up, a posted message might need to be approved by a moderator before it becomes visible.

Some communication theories give insight into the possible harm caused by hate speech and hate sites such as, ‘racist expressions allowing minorities to be categorized with negative attributes are directly harmful to them’. What is overlooked is the fact that whether negative attributes are ascribed to a minority or a majority, racist expressions are equally as harmful. Logic would seem to dictate that the degree of harm caused is greater in amount due to the size of the group that the negative attributes are ascribed to and not vice-versa as theorists propound. Take a very human example of a person infected with a common cold. The damage of physical, emotional and mental well being that catching a cold may cause is greatly magnified among a larger societal grouping than a smaller community. One simply should not cough hate/bias into the midst of any unprotected group.

For certain, racist expressions do cause harm and hate speech is employed by racists as a mechanism of subordinating others. But the effects of such are as equally damaging whether employed by ‘niggers, honkies, religious bigots, sexists or queers’; and it appears that too frequently all such groups are employing them to achieve their own pernicious or cultural ends. This does not make the maintenance of law and order among the unrighteous herd an easy task for any law enforcement agency.

And what compounds difficulty for all, is that sometimes a very self-centered, bigoted group such as that led by the activist Soraya Chemaly can evoke an impact upon the international media community that has potential terminal media effects. Following a campaign against publishing media content that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women, Chemaly led a media assault by Women like that of the Everyday Sexism Project.  Personally, I believe that digging out the roots of domestic and sexual violence is a noble goal, as did the mass of supporters for Chemaly. Such people are to be lauded for taking on ‘the big boys’ but I am not certain that all were driven by noble ideals and desire for ‘the greatest common good’.

Whatever, by May 29, 2013 Facebook had been forced to state it had “become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate.” Ultimately on May 31, 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter jointly agreed to a European Union code of conduct obligating them to review “the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech” posted on their services within 24 hours. So, we are left with a media system somewhat obligated to enact the directives of the European Political Union.  And what a disintegrating, unbalanced Political Union it is proving to be, eh? So where does this noble cause truly leave us Canadians? We are just left floating in an even deeper sewage of blah, blah, blah and necessity of determining what truly does classify as hate/bias crime that should be enforced in Canada. And, to what degree should we allow any ‘off shore agency of any kind’ to dictate our national terms of legal reference? And, just whom should we punish and in what manner if they do not comply with our currently designated laws? Yep, just more of the old blah, blah, blah when the present laws we have on the books can rectify 90% of all societal disruptive forces we face from both within and without the nation.

But, “since signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the Canadian Government has attempted to make universal human rights a part of Canadian Law. There are currently four key mechanisms in Canada to protect human rights: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and provincial human rights laws and commissions.

But generally, international hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those that are designed for public order which appear to be somewhat ineffective because they are rarely enforced. And those meant to protect human dignity, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands which seem to be frequently enforced.  From such a base let us get on with cleaning up our own frozen backyards before we pull anymore inane Trudeau tactics of self-aggrandizement claiming we are the modeling patterns for the world to follow.  It is stated most Canadians believe the country to be a strong proponent and positive model of human rights for the rest of the world. Touting for example the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act of 2005 legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. This in no manner made it morally right and reality is that the enactment was the manipulation by perverted sexual interest groups.  

Marc-André Blanchard will become the country’s new ambassador to the United Nations in April, as stated by Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion.  You can expect Trudeau’s foreign policies to continue to be ‘frequently flying in the face of sanity’ regarding the well-being of our nation.

Trudeau’s Crew of Rabid Islamists openly embrace UN Initiatives to ensure that Blood Shall Flow In Canada as posted on February 11, 2018   It is the Treasonous Liberal initiatives that must be torn from the Canadian political venue.

It is a righteous action with God that this take place.

Phinehas

Galatians 4:16    Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s