Canada's hate speech laws need massive reform

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Canada's hate speech laws need massive reform
Posted By ALAN SHANOFF, SUN MEDIA
Posted 10 hours ago
   
Earlier this month the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the importance of freedom of expression by striking down British Columbia Transit rules that prohibited political advertisements on buses.

The Supreme Court has also recently strengthened the fair comment defence and is considering a new responsible journalism defence for defamation actions. So isn't it time we did something about the odd state of affairs governing hate speech laws in Canada?

First, a disclaimer: I'm in favour of good hate speech laws. I abhor the vile extremist hatred preaching speech freely available on the Internet, but our hate speech laws are subject to abuse and in need of massive reform.

Every province as well as the federal government has a human rights code. Some deal explicitly with hate speech and others do not. The provisions overlap with Criminal Code hate speech offences. Some cover written publications, while the federal code only covers the Internet and other electronic distribution. Many are restricted to notices, signs and symbols.

While hate speech laws are intended to capture the most extreme speech, the statutory language is vague. The federal code covers any speech "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

Anybody or any group can file a complaint. Complaints may be filed in multiple jurisdictions concurrently.

While complainants need not retain a lawyer or incur any legal expenses, the subject of a complaint would be foolish not to do so.

Having launched a complaint, complainants need not appear at or testify at any subsequent hearing.

There is no effective screening process to eliminate complaints with no reasonable prospects of success.

Only complaints shown to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith may be disposed of expeditiously. There is no fixed time period within which a complaint must be investigated or brought to a hearing.

The subject of a complaint can be left twisting for years as B'Nai Brith Canada discovered when it became the subject of a complaint in Manitoba. There is no defence of truth, fair comment or lack of intent. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has wide powers including the power to award monetary damages and fines to an aggregate of $30,000.

Dealing with hate speech issues is different from the other tasks of human rights commissions.

In dealing with a hate speech complaint one must weigh two competing interests.

The interest in free expression and the right not to have that right suppressed competes with the rights of the person or groups offended by the speech.

In all other tasks human rights officials must concern themselves solely with the right of the person or group who claim discrimination.

For example, there are no valid competing interests where a business excludes customers on the basis of race. Human rights commission investigators may be equipped to handle discrimination complaints but, based on well publicized complaints against Maclean's magazine, Ezra Levant, B'Nai Brith and others, they don't appear to be equipped to handle complaints where there are competing interests.

The Criminal Code hate speech section specifically exempts good faith expressions of argument or opinion on religious subjects. Human rights codes do not allow any similar defence.

Since human rights commissions are ill suited to dealing with free expression issues, and human rights codes do not exempt good faith expressions in relation to religious subjects, it's time we fixed this sensitive subject by confining human rights commissions to discrimination issues, leaving hate speech issues for the Criminal Code and the courts.

We should not censor or punish others for criticism of religious dogma even if some may be offended. Only extreme speech advocating hatred or inciting violence should be subject to prosecution and we should leave that task for the courts.
Article ID# 1665390

http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDi ... ?e=1665390