Islamic preacher barred from entering Canada for speaking tour, months after being banned from U.K.

Seems like the right call. Question about a religious exemption for hate speech as proposed by the Bloc much more thorny as one looks at the potential impact across many religions and sects:

…Mr. Blanchet said his party plans to table an amendment to the government’s Combatting Hate bill to stop religion from being used as a defence for hate speech. 

The proposed change to the Criminal Code would abolish a defence allowing a person who incites hatred to escape prosecution if their words are based on religious beliefs or a religious text.

Canadian Identity Minister Steven Guilbeault replied that the Liberals shared the Bloc’s aim to combat hatred and would welcome amendments to the bill.

“We will hear from experts, subject-matter experts, and are willing to work with the Bloc Québécois, with all parties in this House to ensure that hate speech is not in Canada,” he replied. 

Jeremy Bellefeuille, spokesperson for Justice Minister Sean Fraser, said in a text message that the minister “is open to hearing expert testimony in committee.”…

Source: Islamic preacher barred from entering Canada for speaking tour, months after being banned from U.K.

Québec exige la fin de l’exemption religieuse pour la propagande haineuse

Thorny issue, given some of the examples where appears needed and others where more questionable:

Ottawa a démontré peu d’ouverture à une demande du ministre de la Justice du Québec, Simon Jolin-Barrette, qui ne veut plus que le Code criminel permette à des individus de se livrer à de la propagande haineuse « sous le couvert de la foi ». Pour toute réponse, le gouvernement Trudeau a suggéré au ministre québécois de collaborer à l’avancement d’un projet de loi fédéral sur « les préjudices en ligne ».

Le ministre Jolin-Barrette a envoyé une lettre jeudi à son homologue canadien, Arif Virani, afin de lui demander d’abroger deux articles du Code criminel qui contreviennent, selon son interprétation, au principe de laïcité de l’État.

Ces articles — 319 (3) (b) et 319 (3.1) (b) — font partie d’une courte de liste d’exceptions pouvant être évoquées face à des accusations d’avoir fomenté volontairement la haine ou l’antisémitisme. Ils permettent à un accusé de se défendre en faisant valoir le fait d’avoir, « de bonne foi, exprimé une opinion sur un sujet religieux ou une opinion fondée sur un texte religieux auquel il croit », ou d’avoir « tenté d’en établir le bien-fondé par argument ».

De l’avis du ministre Jolin-Barrette, « cette justification est actuellement exploitée pour légitimer des propos discriminatoires ou incendiaires sous le couvert de la foi ». « Ce genre de discours contribue à un climat toxique, menaçant la sécurité et le bien-être des personnes visées », a-t-il écrit au ministre Virani.

Le cabinet du ministre Virani a fait suivre une réponse au Devoir. La directrice adjointe aux communications, Chantalle Aubertin, y a écrit qu’en guise d’« action décisive », Ottawa avait présenté la Loi sur les préjudices en ligne, « une mesure globale visant à lutter contre la propagation des discours haineux, tant en ligne que dans nos communautés ».

« Nous apprécions les observations du ministre Jolin-Barrette et restons déterminés à travailler ensemble pour trouver des solutions », a-t-elle ajouté. « Nous l’encourageons à collaborer avec les parlementaires afin de soutenir l’avancement de la Loi sur les préjudices en ligne en comité, garantissant ainsi que nous disposons des outils nécessaires pour combattre efficacement la haine », a ensuite suggéré Mme Aubertin….

Source: Québec exige la fin de l’exemption religieuse pour la propagande haineuse

Ottawa has shown little openness to a request from Quebec’s Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, who no longer wants the Criminal Code to allow individuals to engage in hateful propaganda “under the guise of faith”. For any response, the Trudeau government suggested that the Quebec minister collaborate in the progress of a federal bill on “online damage”.

Minister Jolin-Barrette sent a letter on Thursday to his Canadian counterpart, Arif Virani, asking him to repeal two articles of the Criminal Code that, according to his interpretation, contravene the principle of secularism of the State.

These articles – 319 (3) (b) and 319 (3.1) (b) – are part of a short list of exceptions that can be raised in the face of accusations of having voluntarily fomented hatred or anti-Semitism. They allow an accused to defend himself by asserting the fact that he has, “in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a religious text in which he believes”, or that he has “tried to establish its merits by argument”.

In the opinion of Minister Jolin-Barrette, “this justification is currently exploited to legitimize discriminatory or incendiary remarks under the guise of faith”. “This kind of speech contributes to a toxic climate, threatening the safety and well-being of the people targeted,” he wrote to Minister Virani.

Minister Virani’s office forwarded a response to the Duty. Assistant Director of Communications, Chantalle Aubertin, wrote that as a “recisive action,” Ottawa had introduced the Online Injuries Act, “a comprehensive measure to combat the spread of hate speech, both online and in our communities.”

“We appreciate Minister Jolin-Barrette’s comments and remain determined to work together to find solutions,” she added. “We encourage her to work with parliamentarians to support the progress of the Online Damages Act in committee, thus ensuring that we have the necessary tools to effectively combat hatred,” Ms. Aubertin then suggested.

Ottawa declines overhaul of hate crime offences

Agree with B’nai Brith that enforcement is the bigger issue, along with the discomfort or reluctance of some to report incidents to the police:

Ottawa says existing Criminal Code offences are adequate to confront a recent surge in hate-fuelled incidents, but the federal government has recommitted to passing a law aimed at improving hate crime prosecutions.

After recent online summits on antisemitism and Islamophobia, the Department of Justice said this week that it wants to ensure hatred is better defined but otherwise has no plans to overhaul the way hate crimes are dealt with in the courts. Suspects are most often charged for a core crime and then prosecutors may argue hate motivation at the end of a trial to secure a heavier sentence.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) released a list of 35 federal recommendations including a call for Ottawa to introduce new provisions in the code to single out hate-motivated assault, murder, threats, and mischief that would include specific new penalties for each infraction. The existing code only singles out three hate propaganda offences and mischief relating to religious or cultural sites.

Nadia Hasan, chief operating officer of the NCCM, said doing this would create a much stronger deterrent for potential criminals as hate crimes have risen in recent years.

“I’m not saying by any means that this alone would eradicate hate crimes for Canada, but it would send a strong message” that hate crimes deserve their own penalties, said Dr. Hasan. Her group also wants the code changed to offer restorative justice measures.

Dr. Hassan said creating a new class of hate crimes would also help victims get better service from front line investigators, some of whom are unfamiliar with Canada’s laws around hate-motivated attacks. The NCCM helped more than 70 hate crimes victims across the country seek justice last year and some of those victims have told her group that police in some jurisdictions routinely discouraged them from filing a hate-related complaint by telling them “it’s not worth it.”

“It happens often enough where we have to fight back and make sure the police are listening and really advocate for the victim,” said Dr. Hasan.

But Ian McLeod, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said in an e-mailed statement that Canadians are well served by a justice system that prosecutes the existing hate crime offences and then, with other hate-related crimes, has penalties amplified when motivation is factored in at sentencing. However, he said Ottawa is committed to updating the Criminal Code throughBill C-36 to define hate speech as “content that expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group,” including over the Internet, where these comments are common.

Bill C-36, which targeted public hate speech by individuals, did not pass into law after being introduced by the Liberal government at the end of the parliamentary session. If an election is called this summer, as is widely expected, the legislation will no longer move forward.

Mr. McLeod’s statement said Ottawa is also tackling online hate through a proposal to create a new regime to police hateful content on social media sites.

In June, MPs unanimously voted to call the emergency Islamophobia conference following the murder of three generations of a London, Ont., Muslim family by a driver now facing terrorism charges, with the government also announcing the summit on antisemitism.

Statistics Canada also recently released its annual report on crime data showing 2020 brought a 10 per cent overall decrease in cases reported by police across the country, but departments reported a record 2,669 hate crimes cases – a 37 per cent spike from the year prior. Police and criminologists acknowledge hate crimes in general go vastly unreported.

Michael Mostyn, chief executive officer of B’nai Brith Canada, said his organization would rather see the current laws enforced “more diligently” before any new amendments are legislated.

“One of the serious frustrations from a group like B’nai Brith, which is dealing with the victims of hate crimes on a daily basis, is that we don’t see so many of these prosecutions across the country,” he said.

Mohammed Hashim, executive director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, a Crown corporation, said many different solutions are needed as Canada’s entire criminal justice system is ill-suited to address the scourge of hate crimes.

“It starts from underreporting; to not having confidence in the police dealing with hate crimes adequately; to the number of charges that are laid, or the lack thereof; and the level of seriousness that both attorney generals and prosecutors treat hate-motivated crimes,” he said.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-declines-overhaul-of-hate-crime-offences/