# data[].attributes.body
Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares that every individual possesses the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

This is the basis for our freedom of expression. However, this covers a lot of ground, and we know that libel and defamation are illegal, so how much does this right actually grant us? Well, that's a pretty daunting topic to undertake, but I can at least demonstrate here a small portion of what we can say. Here, I will show you how far an offensive opinion can get before it becomes hate speech, and what exactly that entails.

# data[].attributes.body
Courts typically point toward one section in the Charter to justify the prohibition of speech, and it's the one they point towards pretty much all infringement justification. Section 1. Section 1 of the Charter states the following:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

So what does this mean for freedom of expression? This means that the law can justify prohibition on the grounds that said prohibition can be shown to help keep Canada stay a free and democratic society.

# data[].attributes.body
This video goes a bit more into depth about the basics of freedom of expressions and touches on the Whatcott case I will mention further down.

# data[].attributes.body
The timeline for laws against hate-speech doesn't end with Whatcott, however. That was merely the foundation of everything that happened next. In the May of 2015, the government began attempting to implement initiatives to charge people boycotting Israel with hate-crime. More details explained in the linked video. The notions were never passed because enough people believed it to be an infringement on freedom of expression.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is there a growing double standard in Canada’s hate speech laws?

# data[].attributes.body
Below is a collage of hate crime statistics over the past few years. Observing them, we can get a sense for which places the crimes are taking place and where to be concerned about.

# data[].attributes.body
This bill passed as a human rights movement has been largely controversial since it controls people's freedom of expression by declaring misgendering a hate crime.

# data[].attributes.body
In a famous case used as the cornerstone for dealing with hate-speech crime in Canada, a man by the last name of Whatcott was tried after four complaints reached the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission concerning some of his activities. Whatcott had printed out two flyers advocating the "removal of homosexuality" from local schools. The flyers in question used language that accusers deemed as inciting hate towards homosexual people. The Supreme Court entertained an appeal on the matter and decided that they would judge allow infringement upon an individual's freedom of expression for laws that meet these criteria:

1. Rules meet an important objective.
E.g. reducing discrimination, furthering equality and human dignity.

2. The restriction on expression only applies to the most extreme forms of speech that are objectively seen to expose protected groups to hatred.

3. Hate speech is a type of expression that does not support the core values of expression: individual self-fulfillment of vulnerable people is undermined.

So limits intended to reduce discrimination, restrict only the forms of speech most likely to expose groups to hatred, and undermine individual self-fulfillment are justified under section 1 of the Charter. In Whatcott's case, since he didn't meet criteria number 2 enough, the charges were dropped.

Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467.

# data[].attributes.body
So, while speaking out against the government's of foreign powers decisions is still protected, always keep an eye out. Things may always change in the future, as the article below highlights when just 5 months ago, senators were still pushing the action. They're still advocating for the ability to punish companies that join in on the Israel boycott.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin is making a behind-the-scenes push to slip an anti-boycott law into a last-minute spending bill being finalized during the lame-duck session, according to four sources familiar with the negotiations.

The measure, known as the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, was shelved earlier amid concerns about the infringement of free speech, after civil liberties groups argued that the original version would have allowed criminal penalties for Americans who participate in a political boycott of Israel. Some of the more aggressive elements of the provision have been removed under pressure, but the American Civil Liberties Union, which spearheaded the initial opposition to the bill, is still strongly opposed.

In a letter to Congress, the ACLU warned that the amended version still creates unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. "We understand the Senate is considering attaching a revised version of S. 720 to the end-of-the-year omnibus spending bill, and we urge you to oppose its inclusion," reads a letter dated December 3.

On Monday, incoming Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., became the second member of Congress to publicly endorse the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment movement, or BDS, which Cardin's measure is meant to combat. She joined incoming Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who had become the first to publicly endorse it. Neither would be able to vote on the measure, as they won't be sworn in until January.

The Senate measure, which has a House companion, is part of a broad push to undermine support of BDS in both the U.S. and Europe , often conflating the boycott with anti-Semitism. According to the activist group Palestine Legal, which monitors anti-BDS legislation across the country, as of June 2018, had enacted laws punishing businesses that choose to boycott Israel. In 2017, one city in Texas even required businesses to certify that they would not boycott Israel before receiving hurricane aid.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which was introduced last year by Cardin and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, would amend the 1979 Export Administration Act to allow penalties for companies who join boycotts of Israel called for by international institutions - like the United Nations or the European Union. The new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for participating in a boycott, but the ACLU has argued that it still leaves the door open for criminal financial penalties. Defenders of the bill say that it is strictly aimed at preventing companies from facing pressure to boycott Israel and that it is not meant to restrict an individual's free speech.

Debate over the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, and Israel's continued expansion of settlements in violation of international law, is already fraught in the United States. Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill was fired last week as a CNN political contributor for a speech he gave at the U.N. calling for equal rights for Palestinians living within Israel or territory controlled by Israeli forces. Critics charged that the speech called for the "destruction of Israel," though it did not.

His critics argue that while tenure protects free speech and academic freedom, his argument amounted to "hate speech ," and is therefore not protected. ( A petition opposing his firing has generated more than 10,000 signatures .)

Lamont Hill has since apologized to those who took offense at his speech, though a campaign to have him fired from his tenure position is ongoing.

"I take seriously the voices of so many Jewish brothers and sisters, who have interpreted my remarks as a call to or endorsement of violence. Rather than hearing a political solution, many heard a dog-whistle that conjured a long and deep history of violence against Jewish people. Although this was the furthest thing from my intent, those particular words clearly caused confusion, anger, fear, and other forms of harm. For that, I am deeply sorry,"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senators Working to Slip Israel Anti-Boycott Law Through in Lame Duck

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin is making a behind-the-scenes push to slip an anti-boycott law into a last-minute spending bill being finalized during the lame-duck session, according to four sources familiar with the negotiations.

# data[].attributes.body
As we have seen, freedom of expression is still very much protected despite everything we've learned in this class about nonwithstanding clauses and the multitude of ways the government can infringe upon our rights. This wall has outlined the core philosophy of hate-speech and how far each individual can go with their personal beliefs. Thank you for taking the time to read my assignment.