I wish I shared your optimistic view of this theoretical exemption. “Lawful protest” is already a trap word thanks to the last 30 years of anti protest laws. Police can declare any protest unlawful based on vague laws, then suddenly you’re guilty of the new hate crime. Many municipalities require protest paths in order to qualify as lawful. This law can be used as an excuse for the municipality to reject the plan and move you to a place where protesting is pointless. Here is a straightforward guide to your rights and the limitations commonly used to regulate, restrict, and extinguish lawful protest: https://lawshun.com/article/what-is-a-lawful-protest-in-canada
We already have hate crime laws. They’re effective. The only thing that’s ineffective is that police never want to investigate to find the people committing hate crimes, calling in bomb threats, vandalizing with hateful messages. This is 90% of the hate crime problem. This law does NOTHING to help identify and indict people who commit hate crimes.
So the only question left is what existing group of people who weren’t targetable by existing hate crime laws can be targeted with these laws. And the answer is pretty straightforward: people who protest the genocide in Gaza. And I’m sure other groups will be targeted.
The literal meaning of the law disclosed by the coverage only emphasizes the prohibition of blocking the access to a religious or community center. That’s what’s added. If they are still using the word “hatred”, it won’t include more groups unless they have this overt action.
Conversely, I concur that the police’s response to hate crimes has been severely inadequate.
Moreover, while the lawfulness of a protest will not be changed by the law if the protesters don’t block the access, the right to protest is disproportionally restricted by the existing legal system.
Although the exact wording hasn’t been released, the news coverage says
So unlike the Ontario one, it seems that protests are not prohibited?
I wish I shared your optimistic view of this theoretical exemption. “Lawful protest” is already a trap word thanks to the last 30 years of anti protest laws. Police can declare any protest unlawful based on vague laws, then suddenly you’re guilty of the new hate crime. Many municipalities require protest paths in order to qualify as lawful. This law can be used as an excuse for the municipality to reject the plan and move you to a place where protesting is pointless. Here is a straightforward guide to your rights and the limitations commonly used to regulate, restrict, and extinguish lawful protest: https://lawshun.com/article/what-is-a-lawful-protest-in-canada
We already have hate crime laws. They’re effective. The only thing that’s ineffective is that police never want to investigate to find the people committing hate crimes, calling in bomb threats, vandalizing with hateful messages. This is 90% of the hate crime problem. This law does NOTHING to help identify and indict people who commit hate crimes.
So the only question left is what existing group of people who weren’t targetable by existing hate crime laws can be targeted with these laws. And the answer is pretty straightforward: people who protest the genocide in Gaza. And I’m sure other groups will be targeted.
The literal meaning of the law disclosed by the coverage only emphasizes the prohibition of blocking the access to a religious or community center. That’s what’s added. If they are still using the word “hatred”, it won’t include more groups unless they have this overt action.
Conversely, I concur that the police’s response to hate crimes has been severely inadequate.
Moreover, while the lawfulness of a protest will not be changed by the law if the protesters don’t block the access, the right to protest is disproportionally restricted by the existing legal system.