The bill adds other hate crimes, but in all cases the act must be motivated by “prohibited grounds” is relevant to them all.

Here’s a nasty one: It gives the sentencing judge unlimited discretion.

318 (1) Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
320.‍1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

 

Let's try a thought experiment. Let’s choose traits not enumerated as prohibited grounds. My question is what if an alternative taxonomy correlate with one the Prohibited grounds? Would that be considered a backdoor proxy for illegal discrimination?’

Pick up this question later I want to revisit. Such correlations can be interpreted through the lense of bigotry. Based on my reading of the Canadian Human Rights, Anti-racism work (chrc-ccdp.gc.ca) I should expect projection. Although they do not handle criminal charges, hate crime is their wheelhouse. You should ask them

The prohibited motivations are not well organized or logical. Experience suggests neither the of illicit motive nor the perpetrators and victims will be treated equally. This will not be based upon the lament of the victim. It will be based on their identity. Therefore, beware. If you are taking risks these political issues involved, you will be the sinister white man. 

Some traits [Reading the Koran. Might well be a Muslim. Soddomy. Might well be Gay. Drooling sycophant who folds under the first sight of pressure. That’s a conservative.]

The reason this concerns me is these “prohibited grounds” are not consistent. Not in the nature of the attribute, population classified. The Hate Crimes list the same “prohibited grounds” principle, but those grounds are not equivalent. Disputes over race and Religion and race are vastly more consequential than age.

 

Canadians may have to decide what is uniquely disgusting and corrupt about someone they hate before openly declaring hatred, Instead of saying, “I hate the Jews” we’ll be confined to denouncing “I hate the executive heads at Lion’s Foot Studios. They are scum.”

The possible prison time for “downplaying” the holocaust is 5 years prison (You had better brush up on David Irving before you discuss the holocost manufacturers..

----

discrimination as moral accusation. The use of discrimination is not necessarily an act of malice. And hiring practice and so-on which puts some part of a protected category at a disadvantage. This is not possible and makes no sense whatsoever. Such ambiguity or logical incoherence gives the Human Rights Commission very good cover. It could take a lot of time, a lot of work and the residual uncertainty may be significant.

 

The 1995 Employment Equity Act is among Canada’s outstanding busybody laws. For some reason many people are not aware of its existence. Federally regulated businesses are obligated to hire visible minorities in proportion to their overall population. [Or in the applicant pool] Companies must keep records of their efforts to achieve this and can be audited at any time.

Employers are expected to increase retention of ‘under-represented’ groups by using promotions and pay raises. That level of management.

Here’s the trick: White males are explicitly excluded. So that is one way to satisfy the appetite for equality.

p.s. The ideological blinkers are very similar to those in Germany https://modernity.news/2024/05/07/german-politician-fined-6k-for-pointing-to-governments-own-stats-on-rapes-by-migrants/  Coming to a parliament near you.