Addressing Unacceptable Hate Speech Against Muslims in Quebec

The Quebec franchise of the infamous Human Rights Commission in Canada has decided that Quebec’s “hate speech” provisions don’t go far enough, and want to broaden them. They want the laws to cover “incitement”, “discrimination”, and “harassment” against a group, even when there is no identifiable individual victim or victims. The aim is to codify something similar to the European norm, as represented by the Swedish hets mot folkgrupp (incitement against a group), the “racially aggravated” Section 5 public order offenses in the UK, or “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” in Austria.

Needless to say, Muslims are the only cited example of a potentially offended group.

Many thanks to Sassy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for subtitling this clip from ICI Radio-Canada, the French-language service of the CBC:


0:00   The Human Rights Commission wants to widen its scope in
0:05   matters related to ‘bullying’. To achieve this goal, it recommends adding
0:09   to the Charter of Human Rights a provision that would forbid hateful comments
0:14   based on discrimination. And here, to discuss the issue is the HRC President,
0:18   Mr. Jacques Frémont. Yes, Hello Mr. Auger.
0:22   Mr. Frémont, we already have a provision in the Federal Criminal Code
0:26   that prohibits hateful intimidation comments. Federal initiatives are in place to combat   bullying.
0:30   Why do we now have to add this to our Québec Human Rights Charter?
0:31   Well… Uh, it’s precisely to complete the process …
0:35   since the Criminal Code already provides for it
0:40   and therefore, we need legal action and police prosecutions and
0:44   if we added it to the Québec Human Rights Charter,
0:48   it would allow victims of these hateful comments or actions
0:52   to register complaints and eventually receive compensation,
0:56   should the need arise.
1:00   But, it’s already in the Québec Charter of Human Rights.
1:04   Clause 10.1 clearly states that harassment is forbidden for cause of
1:08   skin color, sex, pregnancy and sexual orientation, etc… etc…
1:12   The discriminatory harassment issue is already covered there.
1:16   Yes, it is covered but the prejudice must be personal and individualized,
1:20   meaning there needs to be a victim that can show it has been affected
1:25   and is entitled to damages.
1:30   And clause 10.1 does apply for this purpose.
1:34   Now, it’s obvious that the new provision that we propose,
1:38   meaning when a website rails and rants
1:42   with comments promoting hate against particular groups,
1:46   such as the muslim community… we’ve seen some of these websites.
1:50   Currently, nobody has sufficient incentive to file a complaint with us.
1:56   With the new provision, there would be measures in place
2:00   for us to investigate, even if nobody shows up
2:05   For example, if we have someone that visits a muslim website
2:09   and it’s a Francophone Québécois,
2:13   this person could file a complaint.
2:17   Usually, you’re not very open towards adding provisions that are already in place.
2:21   Last spring, during the Secular Charter debate, you stated that gender equality
2:25   and State neutrality are already included in the provisions
2:29   and it’s not a good idea to add on more. Why are you now adding on more?
2:33   (Fremont is laughing…) It’s a good question… I’m reminding you that gender equality
2:37   is already included in two or three provisions of the Québec Charter.
2:41   We feared there might be a bit too much noise by repeating it but in this case,
2:45   our aim is much broader. Public incitement of hatred for
2:50   discrimination purposes is forbidden. So, we no longer need to
2:54   have an individualized victim and to prove it once more.
2:58   If we aren’t satisfied and we think there is incitement of hatred,
3:02   we now have recourse. What we are proposing doesn’t exist at the moment.
3:07   We’ve had complaints filed against anti-muslim websites
3:11   and we couldn’t accept them. It’s still the case now.
3:15   If we had this new provision, we could proceed and take action.
3:20   Of course, what we propose must be related to discrimination,
3:24   bullying or exploitation. These are the three criteria.
3:29   So, if an act of intimidation isn’t
3:33   related to any of these criteria,
3:37   then I don’t know if the provision would apply.
3:41   Us, we looked at a Supreme Court ruling as guidance
3:45   because it’s freedom of expression that is at stake.
3:49   And for the HRC, freedom of expression is very important.
3:53   We must not restrict it unduly. But for cases of intimidation,
3:57   bullying or exploitation, the Supreme Court teaches us
4:01   that we can proceed and it is legitimate for us and the provinces
4:05   to take action in this matter.
4:09   You mentioned earlier the case of an anti-Muslim website.
4:14   It’s very difficult to distinguish between discrimination and freedom of expression.
4:19   There are traditions. American reaction would be different.
4:23   Quite true. And each country has its own laws.
4:27   Us, the Supreme Court endorses, uh…
4:31   Certain provinces already have provisions in place.
4:34   The U.N. General Assembly’s HRC also recommends a similar provision
4:38   and from what I understand from reading the news,
4:45   even the U.S. Supreme Court is now gearing up to revisit
4:52   the First Amendment issue in matters of hate speech.
4:56   In other words, there’s currently a global reaction
5:00   to address unacceptable hate speech of this type,
5:04   regardless of the society.
5:08   Mr. Frémont, let’s put ourselves in a situation where
5:12   a young man is being bullied by classmates because he’s Muslim.
5:16   Will he be protected by the new provision you want to add?
5:20   Technically, if it’s a young man that is being bullied because
5:24   he’s Muslim, it’s already covered by the Québec Charter of Rights.
5:28   It’s when we have comments that are generally hateful
5:32   or that incite hatred, whereby there is no individualized victim,
5:36   the group then becomes the victim.
5:40   This is the intent of our new provision.
5:44   Will the number of complaints increase as a result?
5:49   Are you fully prepared to accept these complaints?
5:53   The case arising, we will be ready.
5:57   However, we hope these hateful comments and behaviour will decrease.
6:01   People will realize this is serious. There is a victim.
6:05   People of a certain group suffer when they read this.
6:10   Let’s hope we can tackle this situation collectively
6:14   and there will be less bullying.
6:18   This is why we set forth this provision for the Québec government.

6 thoughts on “Addressing Unacceptable Hate Speech Against Muslims in Quebec

  1. The entire daily Koran Muslim is hate speech and incitement against non-Muslims in general with an emphasis on Jews and Christians in particular. General de Gaulle would be baffled by his “Quebec Libre” being so sympathetic to Islamic slave traders after all the fuss and bother over English speaking Canada. There is no European norm. There is repression, suppression and depression – but no norm. People are too scared w*******s to speak out or up or at all. Bon voyage Sweden. I guess that will be the end of “Quebecois will dominate” or “Free Quebec”. Meanwhile “Islam will dominate gets a free pass.”

  2. I swear, sometimes I am ashamed to be a white non-Muslim. I am being represented by the dumbest bastards ever to walk the earth.

    • A fact that has not escaped rich Saudis especially and I imagine the active service savages for Satan we invite into, arm and support in their teeming unwashed millions across our homelands. The stench must become overwhelming at some point – I imagine.

  3. Glad we still have a First Amendment and a second Amendment to protect all the amendments. If President Obozo has his way he will ban the Second Amendment with the UN small arms treaty and then there will go the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. In Quebec I would probably get arrested for my articles on GofV.

    • He’s obviously not keen on the First Amendment, what with his public denigration of media outlets that criticize him, his “profanity-laced tirades” against journalists he considers unfair to him, his administration’s machinations to get Sharyl Attkisson censored at CBS and (evidently) to try to frame her on criminal charges, and of course his pronouncement that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

  4. Moslems are lower than pigs, and should be beheaded, converted to my religion or subject to my ‘protection tax’. Women are like cattle and should be beaten and controlled at all times by a male. Oh no, hang on, that’s what the Moslems say!

Comments are closed.