Discrimination is a practical matter, and is a superset every form of discernment. That Discrimination is the superset of every human faculty of differentiation must never be forgotten.
The definition of “Hate Propaganda” gives moral context for what is at stake, but does not in itself provide for any genuine philosophical guidance. It defines promoting genocide, defined in law as
A. killing Members of the group
B.Inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about it’s physical destruction.
These questionable Legal sanctions – involve some set of emotions (What varieties, exactly?) which is likely, or intended to evoke (in whom, exactly?) towards groups (Defined by which taxonomy?) on some basis upon which it is illegal to independently evaluate a person or group.
Anti-discrimination and hate speech laws habitually reifies gerrymandered political clusters as human taxonomies. It ostensibly claims these categories – which include core elements of human identity – must be given no substantial moral consideration. While it is justified as a means to protect persons with these attributes, it requires the categories themselves must be protected – regardless of their origination, moral significance or practical consequences.
Canadian law states “…all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals … without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory(see above) practices based on
national or ethnic origin,
gender identity or expression,
conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.”
They are very different forms of categories. They overlap, are far from exhaustive and lack a coherent criteria for inclusion. In this respect, the taxonomy itself is most illustrative. Further, each enumerated parameter implies it’s own set of contradictions when so enshrined by anti-discrimination/anti-hate laws. Now Canadian Parliament is making ad-hoc to these morally confused
Within this incoherent class of classes, some factors are orders of magnitude more important than others,qualitatively and quantitatively. They vary in the source of a group’s identifiability. Indeed, some of these identities only exist by virtue of government regulations.
Others – like sex, race or religious tradition – are left vague, things whose own nature gives testament to their significance. In these latter cases in particular, anti-discrimination, anti-hate speech laws enshrine bigotry by ostensibly prohibiting it. This is because in as much as they describe natural differences, one must take them into account in order to treat the equally.
Regardless of legislative definitions, biological realities remains what they are. Vague allusions to race shed no insight into complexity of human genetic composition. Of course, even though prohibited from official consideration, the many social and economic ramifications of race are undeniable. Ethnic circles are a perennial source of hostile bigotry. On the face of it, protection extended to both sides can calm hostilities if physical safety is the source of insecurity. Group competition over finite resources, however, cannot be satisfied by debt indefinitely.
In the case of National identity, discrimination based on national identity would proscribed in who is hired by security services, appointed to the judiciary or decides who immigrates.
What about Age? It is a process of human biology. Of course we must discriminate between the zygotic and somatic, between fossilization and age of consent.
The incommensurability of groupings can be seen by the inclusion of both sex and gender. Sex relates to gamete production and germination of zygotic human beings. Sexual orientation or gender is peripheral by comparison. Chromosomal recombination is the sustaining force and the organizing constant of all sexual variation.The proposition that we do not discriminate among sex begins as sterile as it ends. (Gender identity, regardless of it’s dubious ontology, is merely a peripheral deviation from normal development. The word deviant remains accurate, if ill spirited.)
Moving on to “marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence”, These are legal attributes a person can be assigned. Isn’t sovereignty undermined when government prohibits different treatment of those whose treatment is distinct by law? There are two degenerative scenarios:
The first: These status are of entirely legal fabrication. The relevance it has to a person’s role in society would be legally effected only though government intervention. The government claims sovereign power over the attributes but absolves itself of responsibility for adverse consequence. In short, it is sovereignty without responsibility.
The counterpode: In some form the traits exist in a population and described in law to influence their effects. Their purposes – such as they are – are not brought into being by the laws. Government purposes affect them only so far as nature and God will allow.Here is sovereignty which proclaims illegal what it cannot control.
Carrying on with the public good for preventing discrimination on the basis of. “Disability”. We make allowances in what we expect of people and hold them blameless for heritable components of their distress. We are conditioned to accept ‘recompensating’ the disabled as a principle. This Marxist idea is the evolutionary analogue of punishing high ability. While remedy is possible for afflictions in individuals, relaxed selective pressures are known to produce irreversible patterns of mass extinction.
How does it really protect the dignity of the entire person to pass prohibitions with respect to emotions? We know Hate is capable highly developed recruitment of faculties, as is suffering, as is love. The moral confusion corresponds with a distorted emotional frame. Hate itself is used as the representation of all that is hateful. These laws are based in loathing and fear of adaptive response. Democracies which pass laws proscribing human emotion are neither healthy nor morally responsible.
Taken in cultural context, the additions to hate crime legislation is not a promising development. As a general precept, humans deserve consideration for what they are. Simply passing laws denying one category or another deserves no consideration does not make it so. Continuing to pass such laws reinforces the case that application of special protections is always open ended and never really stands to reason or functions as advertised.
The emendations to Criminal law can be found here at parl.ca
[future edit will include some background on the applications of these pernicious hate codes.]