Le Devoir Éditorial | Une réforme au succès incertain [religious hate speech exception] and related commentary

We will see how this works in practice and whether it is enforced:

Heurter des convictions, des croyances ou des visions du monde, c’est le propre de la liberté d’expression. C’est par la réprobation sociale, et non le risque de poursuite et d’emprisonnement, qu’une société démocratique respectueuse de l’équilibre entre les droits fondamentaux vient à bout des discours fiévreux et orageux.

Le Bloc québécois a souvent demandé aux libéraux d’en faire plus pour que la foi ne soit plus utilisée comme une excuse pour tenir des propos haineux. La formation s’appuyait notamment sur l’aversion suscitée par les propos d’un prédicateur incendiaire, Adil Charkaoui, qui implorait le Tout-Puissant de se charger des « sionistes agresseurs », au lendemain de l’invasion de la bande de Gaza par l’armée israélienne. « Assure-toi de n’en laisser aucun », disait-il. Il en appelait aussi à « recenser et exterminer » tous les « ennemis du peuple de Gaza ». Le Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) n’y avait pas trouvé matière à déposer des accusations.

Les débordements et les excès de langage qui ont accompagné les manifestations pro-palestiennes, en particulier sur les campus universitaires, ont grandement influencé la teneur du débat entourant le projet de loi visant à lutter contre la haine. L’affichage de signes ou de symboles associés à des groupes inscrits sur la liste des entités terroristes sera désormais passible de poursuites, au même titre que le blocage des lieux de culte. La montée en force de l’antisémitisme a de quoi inquiéter, et elle doit être dénoncée avec vigueur.

La fin de l’exception religieuse dans le Code criminel marquera sûrement une nouvelle ère, et suivra une nouvelle jurisprudence de la Cour suprême, ultime arbitre de ces questions. Qui sait ce que le DPCP ferait des propos de Charkaoui avec ces nouvelles balises à sa disposition ?

Il n’en demeure pas moins qu’il y a des risques à baisser le seuil en vertu duquel un discours peut être qualifié comme haineux. C’est une porte ouverte à disposer de la question selon l’humeur politique du moment. La loi procurera de nouveaux outils d’intervention aux forces policières, mais seront-elles outillées pour s’en servir ? Départager la véritable haine de la croyance religieuse abêtie, dans ce nouveau contexte, exigera une analyse minutieuse. L’épreuve de la réalité viendra assez vite, car la véritable mesure de succès d’une loi (et son utilité) réside dans la capacité des pouvoirs publics de la faire respecter, sans engendrer de situations arbitraires.

Source: Éditorial | Une réforme au succès incertain

To hit convictions, beliefs or visions of the world is the characteristic of freedom of expression. It is through social reprobation, and not the risk of prosecution and imprisonment, that a democratic society that respects the balance between fundamental rights overcomes feverish and stormy speeches.

The Bloc Québécois has often asked liberals to do more so that faith is no longer used as an excuse for making hate speech. The formation was based in particular on the aversion aroused by the words of an incendiary preacher, Adil Charkaoui, who implored the Almighty to take charge of the “Aggressive Sionists”, the day after the invasion of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli army. ” Make sure you don’t leave any,” he said. He also called for the “identification and extermination” of all the “enemies of the people of Gaza”. The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) had not found reason to file charges.

The overflows and excesses of language that accompanied the pro-Palestian demonstrations, especially on university campuses, greatly influenced the content of the debate surrounding the bill to combat hatred. The display of signs or symbols associated with groups on the list of terrorist entities will now be subject to prosecution, as will the blocking of places of worship. The rise of anti-Semitism is worrying, and it must be vigorously denounced.

The end of the religious exception in the Criminal Code will surely mark a new era, and will follow a new jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of these issues. Who knows what the DPCP would do about Charkaoui’s remarks with these new beacons at its disposal?

Nevertheless, there are risks to lower the threshold by virtue of which a speech can be described as hateful. It is an open door to dispose of the question according to the political mood of the moment. The law will provide new intervention tools for police forces, but will they be equipped to use them? Parting the true hatred of the dazed religious belief, in this new context, will require a careful analysis. The test of reality will come quite quickly, because the real measure of success of a law (and its usefulness) lies in the ability of the public authorities to enforce it, without generating arbitrary situations.

Lisée, Les amis de la haine:

Ailleurs dans le monde, des officiers religieux sont accusés, et parfois condamnés, pour ce genre de propos. En Belgique, au Danemark, en France, en Allemagne, en Suisse, pasteurs et imams savent que la tenue de propos extrêmes, même dans leurs temples, même en citant leurs dieux, peut avoir des conséquences, non seulement pour les cibles de leur haine, mais aussi pour leur propre liberté. Partout, ils peuvent plaider la liberté d’expression et la liberté de religion. Partout, les juges doivent mettre ces libertés dans la balance. Pas au Canada. Au Canada, l’exception sert de bouclier impénétrable pour la haine religieuse.

Elle n’est pas fréquente. En fait, rarissime. Élevé dans le catholicisme, je n’ai jamais entendu un curé citer les passages de la Bible susmentionnés. Les textes sacrés offrent aux célébrants le choix des thèmes, et la plupart choisissent d’en tirer des appels à la fraternité, à la compassion et à l’entraide. C’est pourquoi nous avons des religions apaisées. Mais aux religieux qui ne le sont pas, je ne vois pas pourquoi on donnerait le bon Dieu sans confession.

Elsewhere in the world, religious officers are accused, and sometimes convicted, for this kind of statement. In Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, pastors and imams know that holding extreme remarks, even in their temples, even by quoting their gods, can have consequences, not only for the targets of their hatred, but also for their own freedom. Everywhere, they can plead for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Everywhere, judges must put these freedoms in the balance. Not in Canada. In Canada, the exception serves as an impenetrable shield for religious hatred.

It is not frequent. In fact, very rare. Raised in Catholicism, I have never heard a parish priest quote the aforementioned passages of the Bible. The sacred texts offer the celebrants the choice of themes, and most choose to draw calls for brotherhood, compassion and mutual help. That’s why we have peaceful religions. But to the religious who are not, I do not see why we would give the good God without confession.

John Ivison: How I changed my mind about the Liberals ending religious exemptions for hate speech

Baber’s impassioned performance at the justice committee made the case that stripping the religious defence was more likely to criminalize faith than combat hate.

He pointed out that the religious defence has never been used to acquit a defendant accused of public incitement of hatred. “When we start going down the road of criminalizing more and more speech, we kill free speech,” he said.

The Bloc amendment was aimed at separating religion from the state. But Baber said “everyday Canadians” should not have to fear quoting religious scripture. “That is definitely not something the state should engage in.”

He said the problem the Bloc is trying to solve in the Criminal Code does not exist.

Baber pointed out that the religious defence does not apply to the Section 318 of the Criminal Code on advocating genocide. Nor does it apply to the public incitement of hatred.

Proponents of removing the religious defence have pointed to controversial imam Adil Charkaoui who at a pro-Palestinian rally in Quebec in 2023 made a call “to kill the enemies of the people of Gaza” and “take care of Zionist aggressors.” However, the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence.

“I’m so tired that there is no nuance in this place,” Baber told the committee.

“For goodness sakes, look at how much money we’re spending and there’s no professional thought. We’ve got to inject a little bit more professionalism into politics.

“You don’t need a fancy lawyer, you need someone to read the section. The problem you (the Bloc) are trying to solve does not exist. You cannot defend yourself with a religious exemption after inciting hatred or inciting violence. I implore you to please not do this.”

But, of course, the Liberals and the Bloc teamed up, and they did.

My takeaway from the gruelling hours of testimony at the committee was that the government made a Faustian bargain to gain passage of their bill.

They won, but it was not a clean win.

The removal of the religious exemption may well prove to be an assault on freedom of expression if misused, and its impact will have to be watched closely.

The Liberals will claim victory but if they rack up more wins like this, they will be ruined.