Jun. 28, 2021

Now even your fears can be validated by government

In Canada, the state never stops trying to control us. Now if your neighbour “fears” that you are biased against him or her, the state never stops trying to continls ue. Now if your neigh ouard “fears” that you are biased, you might end up in court, and even in jail.

First we had bill c-10 (now before the senate) that is to regulate our speech online and now we have bill c-36 that is to provide the opportunity to anyone who thinks they harbour a “fear” against someone based on a bias, prejudice, or hate they think this person has toward them, then they can take that person to court. 

We already have adequate protection against hate crimes in the Criminal Code, why do we need this extra layer of state intervention?  Someone’s fear of your alleged bias, prejudice or hate may be enough to have you end up in court and possibly in jail? 

If you look at both the relevant provisions of this new act and the existing provisions of the Criminal Code as it is written, I think many would conclude like me that this is government over reach and the product of minds with a decided totalitarian bent. 

This is apparently Canada today. People now can even have the opportunity to have their fears cared for. 

A. BILL C 36

3 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 810.‍011:

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime 

810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit

(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);

(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or

(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.


(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.


(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months. 

Duration extended

(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance

(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance. 

B. Criminal Code

 Public incitement of hatred

  • 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 
    • 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.
    • Defences(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.