What is Freedom of Expression? What are legal thoughts and beliefs? What is protected in Canada? And what are you allowed to say and do in America that you aren't in Canada?
Good questions!
Let's play a game!
This is a clip of Overtime with Bill Maher, an online continuation of the television show "Real Time with Bill Maher" that is posted on YouTube, where guests and panel members from the show come together to answer questions posted online. This clip, published on February 17, 2017, features comedian Bill Maher, (now, former) Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, former Republican Jack Kingston, comedian Larry Wilmore and counter intelligence officer Malcolm Nance.
​
In this discussion, many inflammatory things are said between the members of the discussion. Everything said by all participants is protected by the First Amendment. Good thing it's filmed in Las Angeles, because one of the commentators says something that violates Canadian laws and is not protected under the Charter. Can you guess who it is and what they said? You'll have to read this page to find out if your answer is correct.
As mentioned before, Freedom of Expression is the protection of any person from federal prosecution based on some form of expressing a belief or opinion. The basics of this premise is similar in both Canada and America, however, also mentioned before, the application and legal wording of these rights means that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Bill of Rights are applied differently to those within the respective countries.
Protected in verbal and text expression include questioning an individuals honesty, integrity, loyalty, sincerity, character, associations, relationships, sexuality, both sex and gender, race, ethnicity, religion, appearance and morals in private conversation, and most of these from a public platform. In almost all cases involving limitations on freedom of expression in Canada, the defendant was at a public level. This can include, but is not limited to politicians, teachers, public broadcasting, not to mention private citizens distributing pamphlets, cold calling or chanting in a public location. Many would argue that any restriction on the Freedom of Expression will only pose as a detriment to our daily living. This sounds grim, particularly if you were expecting the same freedoms as American are provided, but I assure you it's not all bad or limiting in a negative way. We'll get to that later, but for now, let's see exactly what is legal.
Because there is no limit to vocabulary regarding Freedom of Expression, all words, and by default derogatory terms are protected, even if the term is negative or offensive. For example, if you have ever explored the comment section of a Canadian news Facebook post, you will find references to "Jihadi Justin". Although the term "jihadi" has an incredibly negative connotation, and could be considered an extremely offensive term, it is not illegal. This is particularly important to note that, considering "Justin" is the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, the people of Canada are offered incredible freedom knowing they can passively accuse the Prime Minister of terrorism and still not be prosecuted by federal authorities.
This ability to challenge political figures and accuse them of things is not limited to the internet. Anything from emails, letters, phone calls and even face-to-face confrontations are legally accepted as exercising freedom of expression. Case and point, Jennifer Bush's confrontation with, at the time NDP leadership hopeful Jagmeet Singh at an organized meet-and-greet. In the video, Ms. Bush can be heard accusing Mr. Singh of conspiring with terrorists. Again, all Canadian citizens are protected by law in expressing their beliefs of other individuals, including politicians. Even after such an aggressive confrontation, no charges were filed against Ms. Bush.
This action of confronting political figures is, by law, protected in both Canada and America.
This ability to insult all individuals, including the Prime Minister, is what the foundation of the Charter is built on and what sets Canada apart from most nations in the world. Consider that a large part of the Canadian population refers to the Canadian leader as Jihadi Justin, and nobody has ever been prosecuted. By contrast, when Turkish dentist Rifat Cetin posted a picture on Facebook comparing Turkish President Erdogan as Gollum, he was sentenced to a year in prison and stripped him of his parental rights, since it is in Turkish criminal code that nobody shall insult the president.​
What are legal thoughts and beliefs? And what are the limits to vocabulary?
FOX News host Brian Kilmeade is known for saying quite controversial things. This clip is a compilation of clips aired on FOX News said by Kilmeade. On the American network, Kilmeade is notorious for racist remarks relating to stereotypes and misogynism. But, in Canada, some of the remarks he makes actually violate Canadian "hate speech" laws, specifically in the criminal code Section 319, Paragraph 2 - wilful promotion of hatred, when he states "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." Because this is a blatant lie designed to encourage hatred against Muslims, in Canadian broadcasting, this would be deemed "hate speech".
This example is where we find the answer to our game. Who would have broken Canadian law in the Real Time clip? Now, if you are familiar with Milo Yiannopoulus, you would not be surprised to know it is he who broke the "hate speech" law when he demands that transgendered people are statistically significantly more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors.
Limitations
Canada vs. America
What about face-to-face?
Fig. 6
Fig. 5
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
In both Canada and America, private conversations are not restricted by law. This is important to note, particularly in Canada since the introduction of Bill M-103, more commonly know as the "Anti-Islamophobia Law" in 2017. Many Canadians felt their freedom of expression was being violated, particularly since the societal climate in both Canada and America have generated resentment toward the followers of Islam, something that a group of Canadians would like to express.
To be clear, this new legislation does not restrict personal conversations or language within them. This new legislation is merely a redundancy in existing legislation, designed to force legislators into officially and publicly condemning Islamophobia and increasing awareness of discrimination of all races and religious groups, including Islam. Consider that it is already illegal to discriminate against followers of any religion at a public level. Muslims are followers of the Islamic religion, so they were already protected.
Canada's Anti-Islamophobia Law
Many people are confused with the concept of public vs. private conversation. They have a general idea of what "public" is. They may consider going out in public and talking or putting up a "public" post on Facebook as "public". While this may be the definition in daily life, this is certainly not the legal definition. Legally, public conversations are those made from a large platform designed to draw attention. This could be anything from your local news station to teaching school children to a rally in front of parliament. By contrast, the law recognizes conversations between a group of people or posts on social media as private. Even if you have 5000 "friends" on Facebook or a million followers on Twitter, posts on these platforms are still considered private conversation. This means that unless you make a reasonable direct threat against someone, you can be as putrid, vile and acidic in your next status update and face no legal persecution.
To clarify, a reasonable threat is one that a person can actually fulfill. For example:
Public vs. Private Conversation
In the first tweet, there is a direct threat against a particular group, however, it is unfeasible that an average citizen has access to nuclear weaponry. It is also unfeasible that those with access to nuclear weaponry would threaten their use on social media. Because of this, it is an empty threat, so it would not be something that would lead to charges, regardless of the distasteful language or stereotyping.
By contrast, the second tweet has a direct threat that is probable. In comparison to nuclear weapons, hand guns are incredibly easy to gain access to, even in Canada. This ability to obtain the weapon makes this tweet a viable threat, and therefore illegal. If the individual "on 3rd" decided to press charges, "nobody likes me" could face charges of uttering death threats against a minority, which could lead to hate crime charges as well.
For More Information: