Ottawa threatening hate charges against those who boycott Israel

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by btimbit

But haven't international boycotts against any race, national or ethnic origin or religion been illegal for about 30 years now? This isn't new, it's just in the news because "omg Harper, omg Israel."

You know there's a big difference between boycotting Israel and boycotting Jews, right?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You know there's a big difference between boycotting Israel and boycotting Jews, right?

I touched on both of those.

Originally Posted by btimbit

But haven't international boycotts against any race, national or ethnic origin or religion been illegal for about 30 years now? This isn't new, it's just in the news because "omg Harper, omg Israel."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I touched on both of those.

I still think you're off. It's the equivalent of boycotting China, Russia, the U.S., etc., which is perfectly legal.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I still think you're off. It's the equivalent of boycotting China, Russia, the U.S., etc., which is perfectly legal.

I could very well be off, this is just my very basic understanding of it.

Say a company was boycotting products made in the US. That'd be illegal. But it would be perfectly legal for an individual to do it.

Now the hate crime part of it, I think that's the first time I've heard of that

Again I don't usually touch Israel threads, this just seemed to me like an overreaction because of the country involved, not the practice of illegal boycotting itself.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I still think you're off. It's the equivalent of boycotting China, Russia, the U.S., etc., which is perfectly legal.

And so is boycotting Israel even after this amendment. What the amendment does do is extend the protection that hate laws provide to include national origin.

[PsYcNeT]

I think you are correct that a company cannot publicly boycott a country, but there's nothing stopping them from doing it privately.

The groups in question however, would at-best have non-profit status. I would assume most are just general public interest lobby groups, which more or less exist to boycott/threaten to boycott things.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by btimbit

But haven't international boycotts against any race, national or ethnic origin or religion been illegal for about 30 years now? This isn't new, it's just in the news because "omg Harper, omg Israel."

No.

Boycotts are not illegal. And until this amendment goes down it is still technically legal to discriminate or inspire hatred towards someone based on national origin.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

No.

Boycotts are not illegal. And until this amendment goes down it is still technically legal to discriminate or inspire hatred towards someone based on national origin.

We just talked about this. No it's not. It's a violation of section 319(2) unless you can fit into an exception. Again, in this case, an exception is probably met but your blanket statement here is clearly false.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I think you are correct that a company cannot publicly boycott a country, but there's nothing stopping them from doing it privately.

The groups in question however, would at-best have non-profit status. I would assume most are just general public interest lobby groups, which more or less exist to boycott/threaten to boycott things.

Curious about that as well. I'm probably comparing apples to oranges

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

We just talked about this. No it's not. It's a violation of section 319(2) unless you can fit into an exception. Again, in this case, an exception is probably met but your blanket statement here is clearly false.

Yeah, I think you're right that this falls under 319(2), but there are at least 3 obvious defenses: the first that asking people to boycott products from a country does not result in hate; the second (related to the first), that if it does promote hatred, the hatred is not toward people of a national origin (since it would be difficult to say that people of Israeli origin living in Canada experience hatred or discrimination as a result of the BDS movement); but probably most effective, 319 (3c), lists this defense:

"if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true"

Regardless of which side of the Israel/Palestine you fall on, either perspective would be seen by the courts as 'reasonable grounds to be believed', regardless of the vitriol that comes from either side. The courts would rightly reserve any judgement of unreasonable grounds for extreme cases, like Keegstra's holocaust denial and absurd conspiracy theories.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

We just talked about this. No it's not. It's a violation of section 319(2) unless you can fit into an exception. Again, in this case, an exception is probably met but your blanket statement here is clearly false.

Sorry, you're right that was wrong. I hadn't realized the amendment had come into force already. Prior to the amendment hate laws did not apply to national origin.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that the legislature cannot charge someone and cannot find someone guilty of hate crimes either. Those are the jobs of two separate branches of government that the legislature has no control over.

[jammies]

What if I only boycott Israeli products that are made by Arabs? Huh? HUH?!?

Your move, Harper. If you even have one, after being so deftly outsmarted.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

Edit: I'd like to clarify that the legislature cannot charge someone and cannot find someone guilty of hate crimes either. Those are the jobs of two separate branches of government that the legislature has no control over.

Absolutely. It's possible that they're implying they'd be able to exert pressure that would result in charges being laid, which is fairly scandalous in its own right. Not sure why that angle isn't getting as much play.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I like how he didn't respond to the best written post in the thread.

I believe my intent was to point out two posts made up of lies, which you have glossed over. Regardless of sides in the debate, both should be looking for truth, not lies.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Absolutely. It's possible that they're implying they'd be able to exert pressure that would result in charges being laid, which is fairly scandalous in its own right. Not sure why that angle isn't getting as much play.

I think it's most likely that Baird and Blaney were both offering a lot of bluster about BDS for purposes of the government's relationship with Israel, without really having any thought about how they were going to actually follow through on that, or whether anyone would actually look into whether there was any truth to their statements. And then when pressed by a reporter for a quote, a spokesperson, not getting any answers from her own department about how to respond, gave some boilerplate stuff about what laws are on the books, without stating anything about how they would be enforced here.

To me it's most plausible that this is the result of a couple ministers trying to sound tough to the international community, and then a spokesperson doing her best to make it seem like these weren't just empty words, and instead getting her department into trouble.

[SebC]

While I don't support BDS, criminalizing it is a big can of worms. Presumably, you'd catch the "Free Tibet" people as well, and while I don't participate in that movement I don't believe they're ethically wrong.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I think it's most likely that Baird and Blaney were both offering a lot of bluster about BDS for purposes of the government's relationship with Israel, without really having any thought about how they were going to actually follow through on that, or whether anyone would actually look into whether there was any truth to their statements. And then when pressed by a reporter for a quote, a spokesperson, not getting any answers from her own department about how to respond, gave some boilerplate stuff about what laws are on the books, without stating anything about how they would be enforced here.

To me it's most plausible that this is the result of a couple ministers trying to sound tough to the international community, and then a spokesperson doing her best to make it seem like these weren't just empty words, and instead getting her department into trouble.

The minster responsible for the main quote is no longer a member of parliament.