As people continue to fight an uphill battle for free speech in the U.S.—at least on college campuses—various Anglophone countries are busy confecting new hate speech laws. These include but are not limited to blasphemy laws, a subset of restrictions that prohibits dissing religion. Wikipedia gives useful worldwide surveys of blasphemy laws as well as hate speech laws, divided up by country. You’d be surprised at how many Western countries have both kinds of laws, though often they’re not enforced. But the new ones might well be, and I’m especially concerned about Britain, which seems to be on a binge of arresting or threatening people for speech that would be legal in America.
In a new article at The Free Press (click below to read), Rupa Subramanya summarizes new hate speech legislation in Britain, Canada, and Ireland, and has a few words about the Biden administration’s attempt to cub certain forms of speech that adhere to the First Amendment.
I’ll summarize what Subramanya says by country. Her text is indented, and anything flush left is mine.
CANADA
Take Canada. Civil liberties groups north of the border are warning a new bill put forward by Justin Trudeau’s government will introduce “draconian penalties” that risk chilling free speech. How draconian? The law would allow authorities to place a Canadian citizen under house arrest if that person is suspected to commit a future hate crime—even if they have not already done so. The legislation also increases the maximum penalty for advocating genocide from five years to life.
These punishments depend on a hazy definition of hate that Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director and general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has warned could blur the line between “political activism, passionate debate, and offensive speech.”
A life sentence for advocating genocide?! (Note that the CBC below says that a life sentence in Canada is actually 25 years.) But advocating genocide is not even illegal in the U.S., so long as your speech is not inciting imminent and predictable violence. I could stand in downtown Chicago and cry “Gas the Jews” without violating any laws. Or give a speech on it, though of course nobody would invite me to do that save perhaps the SJP. And that’s okay, because so long as you’re not intending to incite violence, your arguments could help opponents sharpen theirs, and at the least “out” you as a hateful bigot. Remember, free speech frees you from the legal consequences of your speech but not the social consequences. And of course you can be fired from some jobs for such expressions.
The first link above, from the CBC, verifies this, and says that “regular” hate crimes could carry a sentence of up to five years. It also shows how nebulous the proposed definition of “hate” and “hate speech” are these:
The bill proposes increasing the maximum punishment for advocating genocide to life imprisonment, and allowing sentences of up to five years in prison for other hate propaganda offences.
. . .[Hatred] will be newly defined as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification” that is “stronger than disdain or dislike.”
The bill also says that a statement that “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends” would not meet the bar to be considered promoting or inciting hatred.
The second bit—about what hate speech is not—is okay as it covers nearly all debatable issues, but basing true hate speech on interpreting an emotion is problematic.
Again from the CBC:
Jewish advocacy groups have welcomed the proposed changes, citing a sharp rise in antisemitism since the Israel-Hamas war began last fall.
In unveiling the potential life sentence for advocating genocide, [Justice Minister] Virani said he heard through consultation with stakeholders that the penalty should be increased.
Well, I’m a (secular) Jew, and I don’t welcome those changes. All they do is drive people who favor genocide underground, so though the proposed law may deter the expression of those sentiments, it won’t quash the sentiments themselves. Again, unless those calls actually lead to a genocide, or to immediate, intended, and predictable violence, both of which are unlikely, they should be legal.
IRELAND
In Ireland, the government is pressing ahead with controversial new restrictions of online speech that, if passed, would be among the most stringent in the Western world.
The proposed legislation would criminalize the act of “inciting hatred” against individuals or groups based on specified “protected characteristics” like race, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation. The definition of incitement is so broad as to include “recklessly encouraging” other people to hate or cause harm “because of your views” or opinions. In other words, intent doesn’t matter. Nor would it matter if you actually posted the “reckless” content. Merely being in possession of that content—say, in a text message, or in a meme stored on your iPhone—could land you a fine of as much as €5,000 ($5,422) or up to 12 months in prison, or both.
As with Canada’s proposed law, the Irish legislation rests on a murky definition of hate. But Ireland’s Justice Minister Helen McEntee sees this lack of clarity as a strength. “On the strong advice of the Office of the Attorney General, we have not sought to limit the definition of the widely understood concept of ‘hatred’ beyond its ordinary and everyday meaning,” she explained. “I am advised that defining it further at this juncture could risk prosecutions collapsing and victims being denied justice.”
The law (see the link) also says you can go to jail for condoning, denying, or trivializing genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. You don’t even have to promulgate this stuff: just denying it or trivializing it can send you to the slammer.
A murky definition of hate is a bug, not a feature, and is intolerable, for ite depends on “the everyday meaning of hate”, which varies among people. Further, “recklessly encouraging other people to hate” is ridiculous; an infringement on even talking to people without any clear consequences. What’s worse is that if you have “hate speech” stored somewhere but not shared, you can still go to jail.
BRITAIN
In Britain, existing online harm legislation means that tweeting “transwomen are men” can lead to a knock on the door from the cops. Now the governing Conservative Party is under pressure to adopt a broad definition of Islamophobia as a “type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Other parties have adopted this definition, and free-speech advocates in Britain worry that it is only a matter of time until a Labour-run government codifies the definition into legislation. To do so, they argue, would mean the introduction of a de facto blasphemy law in Britain.
There’s already a widely-used definition of “antisemitism” that can lead to punishment if it’s expressed in universities, and it’s this one:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
While such expressions are legal in the U.S., and in schools that adhere to the First Amendment, note that it refers to hatred of Jews, not of Judaism. The British government’s definition of Islamophobia refers to criticism of “Muslimness or perceived Muslimness,” which could be construed as a blasphemy law criticizing Islam. In other words, the Charlie Hebdo or Jyllands-Posten cartoons could violate the law. But neither the expression of antisemitism nor either construal of Islamophobia (hatred of Islam or of Muslims) should be illegal. They are legal in America, and I don’t believe our speech laws are a whit more divisive than they are in Britain, which seems to be undergoing a paroxysm of division.
As for the statement “transwomen are men” being illegal, that’s palpably ridiculous. It is in fact biologically accurate, and you shouldn’t be penalized for saying something that’s scientifically correct. The regulation is meant to buttress a gender-activist ideology to force society to give full rights to trans people as members of their assumed rather than their natal and defined sex. While nearly all rights for trans people should certainly be the same as for non-trans people, there are some exceptions—exceptions involve rape counseling, sports participation, and incarceration.
****************
I won’t go into the details about America and the Biden Administration’s failed attempt to get speech restrictions about matters affecting homeland security, but this sentence distressed me:
A worrying number of Americans appear to be sympathetic to [MSNBC legal analyst Barbara] McQuade’s argument. A 2023 Pew survey found that just 42 percent of voters agreed that “freedom of information should be protected, even if it means false information can be published.”
Well of course publication of some false information is already prohibited under the First Amendment, including false advertising and stuff that’s defamatory, but a lot depends here on what the public perceives as “publishable false information”. I think the American courts have already settled this pretty well, so I’m curious how many people even know the already-existing rules.
The new “hate speech” law in Canada is as a direct result of this notion of “genocide” and “mass graves” (neither of which are supported by fact) in relation to Canadian first nations, who have increasingly been driving the Canadian bus even though their numbers are only about 5 percent of the Canadian population. Their “allies,” like Sean “settler historian” Carleton, have stirred up fervour and zealotry even in the face of contravening facts. Leah Gazan succeeded in getting a motion passed in Canadian HOC in October that Canada was guilty of “genocide” and this has kind of more or less morphed into the law. Liberals cannot abide any other opinion than their own, Canadian Liberals with a capital L anyway.
Just like Israel, were Canada guilty of “genocide” they certainly did not do a very good job. Complete and absolute nonsense!
Agreed this is the narrative that is driving the legislation in Canada, not the more recent hatred expressed by some people toward Jews or Muslims.
Remarkably, this story is still up on the New York Times without editorial correction or comment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/world/canada/kamloops-mass-grave-residential-schools.html?searchResultPosition=2
“For decades, most Indigenous children in Canada were taken from their families and forced into boarding schools. A large number never returned home, their families given only vague explanations, or none at all. Now an Indigenous community in British Columbia says it has found evidence of what happened to some of its missing children: a mass grave containing the remains of 215 children on the grounds of a former residential school. Chief Rosanne Casimir of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc First Nation said on Friday that ground-penetrating radar had discovered the remains near the site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School, which operated from 1890 until the late 1970s.”
As Leslie McMillan noted on this site no remains were found. The site in Kamloops is not a mass grave. There is no link between children who died at the Kamloops Indian Residential School and the GPR data from the grounds of the school. And it was not a genocide, the best evidence for which is the huge growth in the population of indigenous people since Europeans first arrived. The Canadian government itself emphasizes that “Much of Canada’s cultural, economic and political landscape has been shaped by the achievements of Indigenous people” and that “Over multiple decades, census data have revealed that the Indigenous population has grown quickly, at a pace far surpassing that of the non-Indigenous population.”
[link removed to work around the moderation tool www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220921/dq220921a-eng.htm]
[edit: Oops I take it back: the story *does* have a correction, but it concerns the way the story characterized the Catholic Church’s apology for mistreating indigenous children in residential schools. Still no correction about “remains” or “mass graves”.]
Arguably the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on Canadian taxpayers. Casimir was even awarded the Order of BC. Madness. “Agreed this is the narrative that is driving the legislation in Canada, not the more recent hatred expressed by some people toward Jews or Muslims.” You’re right, the connection doesn’t seem apparent, but I would posit that there was somewhat of a sea change in Canada at this point wherein the position of “ally” against some assumed oppression and in furtherance of the victim/oppressor narrative became fashionable and which has proven incredibly divisive in Canada, and seems to have facilitated expressions of hate against certain groups.
Several generations ago one of my bold ancestors departed the Aran Islands in Ireland for America. Given:
“… Nor would it matter if you actually posted the “reckless” content. Merely being in possession of that content—say, in a text message, or in a meme stored on your iPhone—could land you a fine of as much as €5,000 ($5,422) or up to 12 months in prison, or both.”
1) am I subject to a manhunt for reckless rage that offends Irish feelings while in California?
2) does USA allow extradition for the hideous crime of having a meme on my Android mocking Allah and his prophet?
3) if I visit Ireland — with or without the phone — do I risk a digital search and frisk resulting in incarceration?
4) do my posts at this website constitute evidence?
I jest. Nervously.
Actually we “Jest” at our peril. It is frightening.
You do want to be mindful of what’s on your phone when you cross a border, yes.
“Islamophobia” UK makes it illegal to be fearful of Islam. It would be interesting to see that argued in a court of law although in the UK it could be decided by the ethnicity of the judge. See the recent case of the “HAMAS Glider Girls”
The proposed Canadian Bill seems even worse, the script of “Minority Report” looks like the framework.
Every Canadian and UK MP should be sent a copy of 1984.
I think the Canadian Prime Minister’s political staff regard 1984 as an instruction manual.
In Britain this power has been devolved to the separate governments, so the British rules you mentioned are only for England.
The rules in Scotland are worse. A draconian Hate Crime Bill has already been passed by the gov here. The police said it is ‘unworkable’ so implementation was delayed, but it should come into force this year.
It was the brainchild of our current FM when he was the Justice Minister and it is full of his usual fuzzy thinking and sexism. Ordinary people didn’t want this bill. It doesn’t exclude speaking in your own home, but ScotGov say no one would be charged for that. Yeah. Right.
The law covers every protected characteristic under the UK Equality Act EXCEPT ‘sex’ so a man in a dress is protected from ‘hate’ under this law but a woman in the same dress is not protected in any way.
Humza insisted he was going to bring in a different law to protect women. But, of course, we’ve heard nothing more about that.
The GRR, which has also been passed, but was blocked by Westminster, will bring more of the same. Parents will risk a 7 year (I think) jail term for telling their child that they can’t transition or have puberty blockers. The gov hasn’t scrapped this bill. They have kept it and are hoping a Labour gov at Westminster after the next election will let it pass. They shouldn’t, as the bill contravenes the Scotland Act (which set up devolved governments) but I don’t trust Labour either.
The SNP are on course to lose a lot of seats at at Westminster, but we are stuck with them at Holyrood until 2026. Time for them do do a lot more damage.
The SNP have been and remain bad for Scotland. Neither Salmond, Sturgeon or Humza were/are capable of managing Scotland as is let alone as an independent country.
SNP intent, INDEPENDENCE! Then hand control completely to the EU.
Awww – without “hate speech”, how are dialecticians supposed to conduct dialectical political warfare?
If the pendulum can’t swing – because “hate” speech is restricted – how is society supposed to reach The End of History?… or will that be it?
You manage to tie in Marxism to a veritable constellation of different issues – issues like this one.
I fail to see how Marxist dialectics play a role in hate speech laws.
“PART ONE: What Is Hate Speech?
1. Words That Wound : The Harms of Hate Speech”
Delgado and Stefancic
Understanding Words That Wound
2004
“And so the dialectic progresses.”
-Delgado and Stefancic
Critical Race Theory – An Introduction
2017
God help us all.
I am not in favor of these superficially well-meaning but vague bills on speech. Laws against hateful speech may keep that speech from public view, but they cannot prevent it from festering underground where it can grow unabated and without notice.
(It seems to me that) free speech is a requirement of a well functioning society. Free competition among ideas winnows out the bad and reinforces the good. Social norms resulting from this competition serve as durable speech police, with acceptable speech (including protest) being encouraged and reinforced, and with deplorable speech being rejected and its proponents marginalized. Prohibitions on speech limit this competition and allow even rotten ideas to gain currency.
Antisemitic public speech is on the rise, but laws against speech will not make antisemitism go away. We need the antisemites to speak publicly so that better minds can publicly rebuke them and the rest of civilized society can publicly reject them.
The laws proposed in Canada and the British Isles sound draconian and will be tragedy grenades in the hands of power corrupted individuals and groups. But the current calls for Israeli and Jewish annihilation in America are not just generic political speech. Through technology, they reverberate across the world and may be used to incite violence anywhere on earth. People who call for the killing of the President or other important public officials are taken seriously and that speech is investigated to determine whether the speaker intends to carry out illegal behavior. I hope speakers who call for the murder or genocide of Jewish individuals or groups are similarly investigated to determine their intentions as well.
This “On-Line Harms” Bill is a cynical trap laid for the opposition Conservative Party, which ought to oppose it. Jewish organizations have, unwisely, called on the government to legislate against anti-Semitic public demonstrations by Hamas supporters, which so far, have not constituted anything illegal, even under our existing hate-speech laws.* (Jew-haters are not stupid. They’ve been to college. They know the law.). The Liberal government will be able to point to this law and say, “Here. We gave you what you wanted. Now go away and stop bothering us while we crack down on the people we really want to crush, the Islamophobes, the systemic racists, “parents-rights” groups, and the transphobes.” And of course we the government will continue to undermine Israel diplomatically, which is our real agenda.
The trap for the Conservatives is they have to oppose a bill for free speech reasons that has already attracted an “it’s about time” narrative from Jewish advocacy organizations who will hold opposition against them. The Liberals have tricked the Conservatives twice already, on the indigenous genocide resolution and the trans conversion therapy ban, into unanimous consent (i.e., no debate or committee hearings), so as not to appear bigoted and unelectable. Let’s see if they can make it a hat trick. Abortion is not a wedge issue in Canada, so they can’t use that. (Just as in America, the Right(ish) is the amateur stupid party and the (hard)Left is the professional evil party.)
By your leave, Jerry, I’d like to forward your views from this website to my contacts, such as they are, in the Jewish community.
——————-
* A current petition is for the Ontario government to curtail protests outside synagogues. (Menacing passers-by on the sidewalk or obstructing entry is already illegal.) It is illegal to protest so many metres from an abortion clinic, so by extension….. You see how slippery the slope gets.
(“Stupid” and “evil” are from Richard Hanania.)
It’s brilliant. A little dungeons-and-dragonsy.
Yes and the Islamic pressure groups are pushing the Canadian LPC for their agenda so it is a catastrophe with no viable opposition. The LPC I suppose could survive if they rid themselves of Trudeau but there are plenty of acolytes waiting in the wings so?
I read articles in the Canadian media about Maxime Bernier? and a Peoples Party for Canada? Is this viable as reading about them it seems limited candidates exist?
Gosh, doesn’t Terry Glavin say pretty much the same thing in his The Real Story substack today. Terry I swear I hadn’t read any of your column before I wrote this above.
https://therealstory.substack.com/p/things-youre-not-allowed-to-know
The there is this….short video of US Representative Dan Goldman (D-NY)
dissing the 1st Amendement:
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1765822559264870458
As an American thoroughly inculcated with first amendment rights ideology I have to confess to being shocked to learn that things are so dramatically different in the countries of our friends and neighbors already, much less what is being proposed with these pieces of legislation. I knew those rights were novel when first incorporated into our constitution at our founding, but didn’t know they were still so unique (shame on me). I may hate “from the river to the sea” but I wouldn’t stop anyone from saying it. I just want to know if the speaker is ignorant or genocidal.
It’s worth watching Murthy vs Missouri as it goes to the US Supreme Court. In short, the federal government is accused of pressuring social media companies to ban, remove, throttle speech and speakers that the government did not like. The ultimate question, as I understand it, is whether the federal government was violating the First Amendment by pressuring companies to take actions that the companies would not otherwise have taken and which the federal government could not legally take on its own. In essence: did the government’s action transform social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action?
As this case plays out, I expect many former advocates of free speech to come out in support of controls over “hate” speech and “disinformation.” Whether there is also a problem with social media companies voluntarily “censoring” views that don’t align with their own politics is a different issue. But even that raises significant questions for a democracy, given the nature of modern communication, and the near perfect alignment between the politics of big tech (excluding Musk) and one of our US political parties.
I am resolutely against ‘hate’ crimes. There should be only ‘crimes’ which may be proven in a court of law. Otherwise what is ‘hateful’ depends on other peoples’ opinions… and some of those people have a very loose binding with reality.
Question for anyone in one of these countries: I’ve long maintained that under Hate Speech laws, the Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud should all be considered violators of hate speech. Definitely those who quote the anti-gay passages during readings or in sermons.
Is there a reason why someone couldn’t file such a claim under these (proposed) censorship laws? As an American, I’m pro-speech, including stuff anyone finds hateful. I (rather frequently) point out to my friends who are against hate speech that the texts of the three Abrahamic religions are chock full of what would be illegal under certain of these laws.