- it bans protests in front of buildings. the law says:
Bill C-9 would amend the Criminal Code to create a new intimidation offence for conduct intended to provoke a state of fear in a person in order to impede their access to:
a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, that is primarily used for religious worship or by an “identifiable group” for administrative, social, cultural or sports activities or events, as an educational institution (including a daycare centre) or as a residence for seniors; or a cemetery.
An “identifiable group” is defined in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code as a group distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
In addition, the Bill would create a new offence for intentionally obstructing or interfering with another person’s lawful access to the same places protected under the new intimidation offence. The obstruction offence would include a statutory exception so that it does not apply to people who are at or near the protected places for the sole purpose of obtaining or communicating information. The new intimidation and obstruction offences would be punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment on indictment or two years less a day by summary proceeding.
- it eliminates the religious exemption for hate speech. currently, you can argue that hate speech is justified if it's a part of a religious text, like the parts of the bible that call for stoning gay people. the bill deletes that. in theory, that would mean that reading the bible in public could generate hate speech charges, if it's done in a way that poses a threat to an identifiable group and is meant to intimidate them. you'd have to be doing it on purpose, with the intent to intimidate. this has recently been a problem with muslim groups in canadian cities.
- the bill also makes it an offence to display symbols associated with terrorist groups in public, but i don't expect that to withstand a constitutional challenge and consider it dead on arrival. this issue has already been adjudicated ad naseum and this is in fact settled law - this is protected speech, and the government is wasting everybody's time trying to criminalize it. the court will tear this down in seconds without a notwithstanding clause, and there isn't one. so i'm not wasting bytes on that. i just hope it's not a hamas symbol that overturns the law, but it probably will be. yes - this would make flying a hamas flag an offense in canada, punishable by up to ten years. but nobody is going to go to jail for this.
there has been a lot of conservative opposition in canada to the second part of the law, which i actually support as long overdue. if we're going to have hate crime legislation in canada, it should be written to target religious groups, not to exempt them. religion is the primary and dominant source of hate in the world and the entity most in need of regulation in order to eliminate hate, because it causes almost all of it. the idea of exempting it is ridiculous; it should be what the law is intended to stop.
there has been almost no discussion of the first part of the law, which i find more concerning and staunchly oppose. this law, which is in the senate, would criminalize teacher's strikes or nurse's strikes and give scabs a legal right to break a picket line. striking workers could be sent to jail for ten years for enforcing a picket line and history shows that this is how the law would be used, not to arrest muslims for blocking a synagogue. the scope of the law is so broad that it would criminalize virtually any assembly rights. it's very clearly unconstitutional, but nobody has even criticized it at all. the focus has been on defending the supposed rights of religious bigots to use their sacred texts to spread hatred.
if you zoom out and look at the kinds of laws being passed in this country both in quebec and by the federal government, it indicates that there's a developing crisis in this country. canada is a secular society that did not enforce a rigorous enough immigration policy for far too long, and it's generated deep social fissures that the legislature is struggling to address. it's worth being clear that what needs to be addressed is the root cause, which is not adhering close enough to the points system. we need to go back to better screening for secular values on the way in, so we don't need these kinds of laws explicitly passed to protect our culture and enforce our way of life.