The two main provisions addressing hate in Canada, sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, impose criminal sanctions against anyone who wilfully promotes genocide or incites hatred in public. In other words, they prohibit hate propaganda. 10Īmong the laws that have restricted freedom of expression are those referred to as anti‑hate laws, for their purpose is to restrict the publication and public expression of messages intended to incite hatred towards members of particular groups. In 1990, then Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Antonio Lamer described offences that address forms of speech or expression as falling under the following categories: offences against the public order, offences related to falsehood, offences against the person and reputation, offences against the administration of law and justice, and offences related to public morals and disorderly conduct. 8 For instance, under the Criminal Code, 9 such actions as defamatory libel, counselling suicide, perjury and fraud are prohibited. In Canada, various laws at the federal, provincial and territorial levels impose restrictions on the freedom of expression guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 6 In other countries, strict limitations on free speech may go as far as to impose the death penalty for such crimes as apostasy, blasphemy or other statements that may be perceived to be opposed to the dominant religion. For instance, some European countries have passed laws in accordance with a European Union Council decision to make it a punishable offence not only to incite hatred, but also to publicly deny crimes of genocide (e.g., the Holocaust) or war crimes. Some countries show a greater acceptance than others for prohibiting certain forms of speech and even the expression of certain opinions. 3 And yet, even there, many restrictions on free speech do exist, such as those against speech that incites “imminent lawless action” 4 and those that censor obscenity. ![]() The United States of America has traditionally been a country where the constitutional protection of free speech is vigorously defended. 2ĭifferent approaches to what is acceptable speech can be seen around the world. Others argue that restrictions on hate speech are vital to the protection of minority communities from the harm that such speech causes. They consider that the best response to harmful speech is through debate that lets different ideas freely challenge it. ![]() Some free speech advocates prefer an open marketplace of ideas, where no expression is restricted. Although Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1 proclaims that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, many countries have laws that censor or limit certain types of expression, including speech that incites violence and hatred.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |