I’m usually not in favor of restricting freedom of speech. But hate speech is akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater and can also constitute a form of collective libel/slander. Both acts are already legally punishable. Your freedom ends where the rights of others begin. The question is in striking the right balance. Which of course is why this legislation took five years to move forward. But I think in this case, the court can decide if the defendant expressed a legitimate point of view or if his conduct was aimed at disturbing the social peace. This is an appropriate safeguard against official abuse of power in the name of fighting extremism and hatred.
And when ‘hate speech’ is defined as it is in the UK, where street preaching is now enough to arrest you? The problem I see with such restrictions is that they open the door to liberals later down the line.
Next thing you know criticizing Islam or Homosexuality will be “Hate Speech”, I don’t want to go down that road.
Besides, I want to know who the idiots are.
We have laws against Holocaust denial in Canada. IMHO, they are worse than useless. We were able to expel a crank, who almost no one took seriously. Meanwhile, university campuses are rife with anti-antisemitism, disguised as anti-Israeli policies. Nothing is being done to the bigoted student activists, nor their faculty enablers. It’s against the law to quibble about the numbers killed in the Holocaust (as if there were any acceptable number) — but, quite legal to call for the expulsion of Israeli academics (and worse).