Negotiating the contours of unlawful hate speech: regulation under provincial human rights laws in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic writing and media commentary on Canadian hate speech laws has focused heavily on the offences created by the Criminal Code and the restrictions in the Canadian Human Rights Act on telephonic communication of hate messages. In both cases, this intensity of interest has been prompted by a range of factors including the national operation of these laws, their mobilization against well-known and attention seeking racist organisations and individuals, and the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has been called upon to rule on the constitutional validity and interpretation of both federal statutes. Consequently, there is a substantial body of academic writing on the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Keegstra and Taylor v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, focusing on the Court’s resolution of the tension between the protection afforded to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the criminalization of hate speech under the Criminal Code. Comparatively little attention has been devoted to the operation of restrictions on various forms of hate speech contained in the human rights statutes of almost all Canadian provinces and territories. And yet, provincial hate speech laws have a long history in Canada and have been invoked on a number of occasions in efforts to restrict and/or sanction conduct by individuals or groups that promotes ill-feeling and discrimination towards particular minorities, including Jews, Aboriginal people, people of colour, and gays and lesbians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it