“In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.”
Wait, so maybe I wasn’t completely off-base. The CBA seems to take a broader interpretation of the law that I would oppose. I don’t think we need laws to protect people from being humiliated or offended. Am I reading that correctly?
It only protects them from being persistently humiliated or offended by federally regulated outlets on the basis of gender identity or expression. It has nothing to do with the speech or expression of any individual Canadian.
“The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have.”
And I really don’t see the distinction they are trying to make here. It’s okay to express hateful views, but if a member of a protected class is exposed to those hateful views, then it’s not okay? This seems vague and confused.
It is too vague. I think they’re implying calls for genocide, calls for violence, or things of that nature. Either way, that’s a problem with hate speech laws in general, not C-16.