— Feature, Musings —10.16.2023 09:58 AM
My latest: promoting terror should be a crime
It “brings progress.”
That’s what a Canadian union leader said, the day after Hamas massacred hundreds of Israeli men, women and children. “Progress.”
Three student unions at a major Canadian university called Hamas’ terrorism “a strong act of resistance” – and called Israel a “so-called” country. “Resistance.”
At street protests across the country, Hamas is celebrated. In Toronto, they waved the flag of Hamas, a listed terror group in this country. Someone else brought along the flag of the Taliban – which 158 Canadians lost their lives fighting, not so long ago.
They played recordings of the sounds of Hamas’ missiles landing, and mocked “Zionists.” They chanted cheerily about an ancient slaughter of Jews.
There have been rallies in support of Israel and its people, yes. But since Hamas’ October 7 mass-murder of more than 1,300 Israelis, there have been too many unambiguous expressions of support for terror. Here, in Canada.
For murder.
In other places, you’re not allowed to advocate for murder and genocide. Britain’s Home Office has drawn up plans to expel students and others who express support for Hamas. France’s Interior Minister has banned all public demonstrations in support of Hamas.
In Canada – apart from some editorials in newspapers, and performative condemnations by politicians – we have done nothing. Zero. We have instead permitted the willful and open promotion of murder.
Enough.
We are a country of laws. We are a country of laws with reasonable limits on what people can say. Just as it is a crime to threaten to kill or harm another person in Canada, it is a crime to promote hatred.
Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada says that you cannot willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, like Jews. Section 318 makes it a crime to promote genocide against an identifiable group. Like Jews.
This writer has been part of a successful effort to prosecute, convict and jail two Toronto men who willfully promoted hatred against Jews and women. It was overdue, and it was the right thing to do.
We now need to do likewise with those who would advocate for the homicidal subhumans who make up Hamas and its ilk. We need to make it unlawful to willfully promote and defend terrorism.
Don’t we have a law like that already, some ask? Well, we used to. We used to have section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibited communications which were “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”
It was a non-criminal sanction, that mainly provided for fines. It was a sensible law that worked. But the government of Stephen Harper stupidly, cravenly got rid of it. Leaving us only with the criminal law to fight expressions of hatred.
Expressions of hatred, mainly online, exploded after section 13 was abolished by the Tories. The government of Justin Trudeau has made no serious effort to bring it back. And, as we’ve seen in the past few days, too many Canadians have taken that as a license to advocate for terror.
Freedom of speech is precious, yes. But sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code require the approval of the Attorney General to initiate a prosecution. That is a high bar. We could do that for a new law that prohibits the willful promotion of terrorism and terror groups.
That would protect Canadians constitutional right to free expression and free speech. But it would also ensure that we finally have a tool to end expressions of support for terror.
It’s time. This has gone on for too long, and it is only going to get worse.
Enough.
Free speech is a popular topic these days. Crying about the freedom to promote violence, and hatred and conspiracy theory. What they don’t seem to understand is that when you allow the kind of free speech to exist that promotes hatred and violence it will inevitably infringe on the freedoms of your fellow citizens – There’s a line to be drawn in the sand.
This is reasoned thinking and I, for one, agree with
the whole article.
Enough is enough vis-a-vis hate speech & fomenting
terrorism in Canada. Canadians are not a hateful bunch
of malignant malcontents. The CUPE union & NDP
adherents are going overboard here.
I’m going to have to go back to the goddamned Liberals
again, dammit.
You get what you give
The level of hatred against Israel is very sad.
just good old fashion Jew hating. No surprise.
Justin a no show for QP but I guess he is going to deign to show up at 3:10.
Freedom of speech should never be the freedom to terrorize people with words. People don’t feel like they live in a fee society when sections 0f that society are free to target them with hate speech and conspiracy theory.
You get what you give. Is this statement promoting terror.
I favour the application of the Criminal Code only. To treat hate speech via a non-criminal statute is inappropriate and woefully inadequate.
It “brings progress.”
That’s what a Canadian union leader said, the day after Hamas massacred hundreds of Israeli men, women and children. “Progress.”
Three student unions at a major Canadian university called Hamas’ terrorism “a strong act of resistance” – and called Israel a “so-called” country. “Resistance.”
Oskar Dirlewanger supports Canadian and student Unions view of the slaughter of Israelis, 2 thumbs up! (Read sarcasm)
I saw that the Conservatives have now put it to Parliament to examine why the CBC has disallowed its journalists from using the word “terrorist” to describe Hamas.
This is a very good thing, and I imagine will further the growing movement to de-fund the CBC – which would also be a very good thing.
Politicians shouldn’t ever be telling Journalists how to do their jobs. Even when the politicians have a valid point.
I will respectfully disagree with Warren on this one. When they are on the public dime…. yes journalists, through their bosses, should explain themselves to politicians . If CBC thinks there is something wrong with labelling Hamas as a terrorist organization, they should present that argument and present it publicly.
Exactly. The CBC is essentially an arm of the government (despite how much they argue otherwise) and in turn owned by taxpayers. The CBC therefore doesn’t have the right to self-determination, unlike other independent news organizations.
Which is sort of the problem with the CBC in its essence, and of state-owned media in general. They are not independent journalists when they rely on government handouts for the vast majority of their revenues.
I’ve been impressed with Canadian police explaining themselves on this topic in recent days. They seem to be drawing a line between allowing public demonstrations of support for Palestine / Gaza (OK) VS advocating violence / harm towards Israelis (Not OK). There needs to be room for folks who want better circumstances for Palestine / Gaza but aren’t advocating terrorism. I think that’s reasonable and within the boundaries of what Canadians expect.
I’m on the fence about criminalizing promotion of terrorism as I don’t trust government or the justice system to appreciate nuance. Rather, I would like to see legislation allowing individuals to disassociate from groups such as unions and student councils that make public statements that are personally offensive. How much reservation would CUPE exhibit about making political statements if it knew its coerced membership could choose to forego financial support?
Doug,
I don’t think the word nuance can be used in the same sentence with the operative term of terrorism.
Doug: Members of a Union can usually cancel their membership at any time. Same with a Student Council. However, members of either group probably won’t cancel memberships because of the Execs’ views on the war in Israel / Gaza. This is because it has nothing to do with the organizations” mandates. No one gives FA what they think about international affairs.
The purpose of membership is to enhance / solidify your working conditions / learning conditions. As long as that is happening, people will maintain their membership in such organizations.
The tiny factions of unhinged Union / Student Council Execs are wildly, incompetently overstretching their span of influence with these matters.
If people are really upset about it, they should organize to *take over* and throw the bums out, not cancel their membership.
I cannot disagree more with your rationale. LEADERSHIP by it’s label LEADS. We need only look at the incompetent current leadership in many countries that shines a beacon on what happens when the members (voters) don’t care about the leader’s profile.
If you are a member of an organization and enjoy it’s benefits and are prepared to turn a blind eye to failed LEADERSHIP you are a the very least complacent. The question is how far does it go before you become complicate. If you don’t have your principals but you get the benefits you don’t have much.
In a country that is reliant on trade as this great nation is, you damn well have a bit of concern about foreign affairs because the affairs of other nations affect who buys our products and who we get supplies from. A union member building war machinery in London Ontario had better have some care that his work is not supporting a corrupt regime. Just an example.
For two wars in Europe in the 1910’s and 190’s (you may have heard of these skirmishes) Americans played the hand of not getting involved in Europe. In both cases they finally did care and I think without their contribution the international community we live in today would be very different.
I read the same sort of rationale to shield Palestinians who are not supporters of Hamas, it has been said by some that MOST Palestinians do not support Hamas and yet the popular vote when Hamas came to power in Hamas was well over 50% vote. That’s an example of where complacency became complicate.
You can’t sing Kumbaye by the fire all night if you don’t spend part of the day gathering wood.
The problem with these hate laws are exactly what Warren is writing about here: the laws are selectively enforced on the basis of political considerations and ideology.
There’s no justice in a law for thee but none for me.
Warren,
Each side is blaming the other about the explosion at that Gaza hospital. Israel says it’s Palestinian Islamic Jihad launching rockets while Hamas says it’s a hit by the IDF. However, Israel has an intercepted conversation between two men in Arabic so right now, the credibility gap is widening for Hamas.
The other thing again is the true nature of those spontaneous demonstrations across the Arab world. The crime, by itself, does and should bring people out. But what about the actual truth? When that comes out and it’s irrefutable to any objective opinion, how will the Arab world react? Will they reflexively bend into the wind of the real truth or will they stick with their preconceived views that are deemed to be the truth? You can say the same thing about the Israeli right and their preconceived views. So, public relations wise, it’s a disaster all around, with TRUTH being the inevitable and predictable casualty. Everyone sticks to their particular hymn book.
From The National Post:
Ah, TheNationalImbecileTM in action again, with his usual level of thorough preparation:
“The news coming out of Gaza is horrific and absolutely unacceptable,” Trudeau correctly told reporters. He should’ve stopped there. Instead, he continued: “International humanitarian and international law needs to be respected in this, and in all cases. There are rules around wars and it’s not acceptable to hit a hospital.”
Guess who he was blaming, without proof? You got it. Israel.
Personally, as long as people assaulting anyone, threatening physical violence, or vandalizing property, I don’t care what they say in any capacity including public protests. I’m of the opinion that it’s best to let extreme or odious views air out so that we know exactly what we’re dealing with as a society. I realize many won’t agree with this take and I respect that view. I’m just very philosphically opposed to any kind of infringements on speech, including speech I find execrable.
As I hope you assumed, in that first line I meant to say: as long as people ARE NOT assaulting anyone, threatening physical violence, or vandalizing property
Apologies, will proofread next time.
Pedant,
At least it wasn’t that damned phone spell check. LOL.
As an intellectual exercise, I would be tempted to agree with you. However, in the cold, harsh reality of life, I have to disagree respectfully: the polluting of minds aspect and follower-making character of hate speech is too great a risk to tolerate. Hate speech inevitably leads to an increase in the number of haters and camp followers. And that, in and of itself, is unacceptable in a free and democratic society. Hate propagation is an automatic non-starter in any decent society.