Ottawa threatening hate charges against those who boycott Israel

[pria(kin)16]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Nelson Mandela called Israel an Apartheid state. He, of all people, should know what an Apartheid state is..

Source please. If you're referring to the famed memo to the New York Times, it was a fake and was actually written by Arjan El Fassed of the Electronic Intifada.

http://electronicintifada.net/conten...-friedman/4826

Also wanted to add this op-ed piece by Kenneth Meshoe, a South African member of parliament calling the labeling of Israel as an apartheid state as slanderous, deceptive and a ridiculous accusation.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancis...nt?oid=2339168

[MarchHare]

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the leading Canadian advocacy group calling for a boycott of Israel is Independent Jewish Voices. I would absolutely LOVE to see The Harper Government try to charge that group with a hate crime for being anti-semitic.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.655958

BDS supporters in Canada include the United Church of Canada, Canadian Quakers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), various university groups and Independent Jewish Voices, which is the chief organizer of pro-BDS activity in Canada.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Matata

[tinfoil hat]

with the end of a Canadian PC govt seeming inevitable, the new world order is without motivation to disguise their intentions and are now shamelessly pushing their pro-war, pro-surveillance, pro-Isreal agenda.

[\tinfoil hat]

Check the polls, man. The Conservatives are as likely to gain another majority as they are to be defeated.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Check the polls, man. The Conservatives are as likely to gain another majority as they are to be defeated.

Not like it matters anyway. The Liberals wanted C-51. No government gives it back once they have it.

[evman150]

The Conservatives appeal to the basest of our emotions and instincts. It's absolutely brilliant, and absolutely terrifying to anyone who can see past it.

Unfortunately, because of this appeal, they are bulletproof. Harper could rescind the Charter, make Christianity the state religion, and even put "soldiers with guns...in our cities", and they would still get a majority.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

Not like it matters anyway. The Liberals wanted C-51. No government gives it back once they have it.

Oh totally. Once again we have an election where the question voters ask themselves will be "Well, who sucks the least?"

[blankall]

Is there actually any evidence that these laws are going to be specifically directed against BDS? I see no issue with adding country of origin to anti-discrimination legislation. For example, if I were to deny someone a job solely based on the fact they were from Peru, that would be discrimination. The concept of race is such a made up term, and it often coincides with country of origin.

As far as the title concerning "hate speech", in Canada hate speech only involves call for genocide. So if I were to call for the genocide of people from a specific nation, I don't see how that's not hate speech. If there are members of the BDS movement calling for genocide of Israeli people, I don't see how that's not genocide. I also don't see how that prevents someone from boycotting an Israeli good.

As for the BDS campaign, I don't see any issue with many aspects of it. If you want to use private money to avoid buying goods from a country, that's your choice. However, the idea of boycotting academic works, research, arts, knowledge, etc...is just pure facism and no different than burning books. You cannot boycott ideas and knowledge.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

As far as the title concerning "hate speech", in Canada hate speech only involves call for genocide. So if I were to call for the genocide of people from a specific nation, I don't see how that's not hate speech. If there are members of the BDS movement calling for genocide of Israeli people, I don't see how that's not genocide. I also don't see how that prevents someone from boycotting an Israeli good.

This is wrong. There are two hate speech provisions in the criminal code. One involves genocide, the other doesn't.

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

[...]

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

100% agreed.

Trying to make it illegal is also idiotic though.

Is there any actual proof of this. The way the new law reads is that they would make it illegal to call for genocide based on a persons nationality. I don't see any problem with that, and there are most certainly elements in the anti-Israel crowd who do that. Is the goal of this legislation to stop someone from choosing not to buy an Israeli good? I don't see any evidence of that.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is wrong. There are two hate speech provisions in the criminal code. One involves genocide, the other doesn't.

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

[...]

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Okay...so it excludes genocide and "breaches of the peace". You do realize a breach of the peace is an action that constitutes actual or threatened harm towards someone:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc...&resultIndex=5

The threshold for this is actually quite high, and would not include something like economic harm to Israel. So if I'm standing in the street yelling to physically harm Peruvians, that would be okay? Obviously, that's hate speech, and I don't see how it's any different than promoting harm towards black people.

Once again, the issue is that while most elements of the BDS movement are lawful, there is most certainly elements who just use it as a platform to promote hatred.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by blankall

Is there any actual proof of this...

The proof is in the intent. The intent is to make calls for boycotting based on nationality illegal. A thinking person must be able to differentiate the issue of "what does boycotting of Israel mean?" from the issue of "should a free world government try prohibiting a constitutional right of anyone to call for pretty much anything?". While, personally, I completely dismiss the real motivations of those calling for Israel boycott, I at the same time completely dismiss Government's intent to make their calls illegal. If they want to call for a boycott of anything, it's their right in a free and democratic society.

I always try to apply the reverse test: how would I react if we had a Government that is very pro-Palestinian/against-Israel and that would try legislating a mandatory boycott of Israel, like USSR and other Eastern Block countries did in the 70's?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The proof is in the intent. The intent is to make calls for boycotting based on nationality illegal. A thinking person must be able to differentiate the issue of "what does boycotting of Israel mean?" from the issue of "should a free world government try prohibiting a constitutional right of anyone to call for pretty much anything?". While, personally, I completely dismiss the real motivations of those calling for Israel boycott, I at the same time completely dismiss Government's intent to make their calls illegal. If they want to call for a boycott of anything, it's their right in a free and democratic society.

I always try to apply the reverse test: how would I react if we had a Government that is very pro-Palestinian/against-Israel and that would try legislating a mandatory boycott of Israel, like USSR and other Eastern Block countries did in the 70's?

Where does it say that the intent is to make calls for boycotts illegal though? Hate speech is directed at "Breaches of the peace" or call for genocide. What about those includes a boycott?

This legislation would also provide equal protection to Palestinians. It would make calling for the deaths of all Palestinians illegal. I really don't see the issue with the legislation itself. The government does not have the power to say that it should be directed against moves to boycott, unless they specifically legislate. Thus far, the courts have not found a "breach of the peace" to include anything remotely similar to a boycott.

[PsYcNeT]

So whatever happened to that small government thing.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So whatever happened to that small government thing.

If he keeps this up we can reward him with a really small government!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So whatever happened to that small government thing.

Small government has never been a tenant of conservatism in Canada. Not in the US, either. It's used as political weaponry, but it's not an idealogical tenant. In Canada, small government isn't a concern. Large, involved government is their tenant.

Canadian branded conservatism is about increasing the size and scope of government, as a corporatist economic solution. Instead of lobbying the government for reductions in regulations, they campaign for closer ties to government, using the public purse strings to leverage infrastructure improvements, monopolies and general uncompetitive business practices to main a competitive edge.

This recent discussion is in that same vein.

[PsYcNeT]

Good post dude, we have no true Ron Pauls (for the better, I'm sure).

PS It's "tenet" (sorry I'm not usually a grammar ####### about stuff).

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Good post dude, we have no true Ron Pauls (for the better, I'm sure).

PS It's "tenet" (sorry I'm not usually a grammar ####### about stuff).

I've got a wicked hangover today.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I've got a wicked hangover today.

Pro-level avatar/post combo.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

Okay...so it excludes genocide and "breaches of the peace". You do realize a breach of the peace is an action that constitutes actual or threatened harm towards someone

Sorry that's my bad; there's a second part of that provision:

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sorry that's my bad; there's a second part of that provision:

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Why don't we look at the whole section:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal noteefences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) 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; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

I really don't see how anything there would stop you from making a legitimate economic boycott of Israel, or any other country. As I previously stated, the laws curtailing hatred towards a nationality would protect Palestinians (which is a nationality) just as much as Israelis. I honestly don't see the issue. The idea of race/ethnicity is totally made up, and usually coincides with nationality anyways.

Once again, I don't see a single thing in these laws that would give special rights to Israel over other nations. The issue is that the BDS movement genuinely crosses the line sometimes, and this legislation would now cover the loophole they've been hiding behind that they are attacking Israelis and not Jews who happen to be living in Israel. There is no mention of stopping legitimate boycotts, and if you can find a court case or piece of legislation that shows hate speech includes that, I would like to see it.