Guest blogpost: Ending “Hate Speech”

Good boogin’, RT.

I figger the best defense against hate is education. The more you know, the stoopider bigotry and racism looks. Smallmindedness ain’t called smallmindedness fer nuthin’. Bigots and racists are intellectually bankrupt cretins. Let them rant and crow and preach as much hate as they want.

As long as we don’t allow our education system to slip into the absurd realm where creationism is taught as fact and race hatred is systemically perpetuated through the schools, we have nothing to fear from a few ignorant loudmouths who are obviously not exactly brainy. So long as we don’t start separatin’ the races in the schools and we don’t start denying science, we’ll be okay.

JB

RA — I’m generally opposed to “hate speech” legislation as a matter of principle and have made this quite clear in the past, notwithstanding that it might put me at odds with some of my more “liberal” ("do-gooding") friends. Personally, I find the notion of invoking the government to intervene in such matters to be highly objectionable. It’s a very dangerous precedent that potentially leads to no good; particularly when the fundamental ground rules are so arbitrary and fuzzy to begin with. That said, I’m not comforted much by some the company being kept in maintaining such a position, as I suspect their motives are quite different from mine — some quite clearly are just seeking more or less free license to spew their hateful rhetoric with complete impunity. Which is their right, to an extent, but hardly an admirable objective by any measure.

JB — Along the same lines, I’ve always felt that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” when it comes to this sort of thing and that when exposed to the clear light of day, any sentient, rational person can see hateful, ignorant of malicious tripe for exactly what it is. This perhaps is one of the unfortunate and unintended consequences of this particular piece of legislation in that it encourages the “haters” to apply a thin veneer of rhetorical shellac to their bigotry in order to skirt the censors and in the extremely rare event they are actually nailed for stepping over the line of common decency, then moan and wail about being “victimized” by the big-bad nanny state. Unfortunately, all this does is serve to gin up their credibility and rally fellow bigots to their cause… all under the glorious banner of “free speech” naturally. I say, let them speak freely without such pathetic ruses and be exposed for the loathsome, small-minded creatures they are.     

Damnit, I forgot Scott’s site has an editor…

No problem Raphael - fixed. (Scott)

Hey he accused Keith  Martin of it.  Why should it come as a surprise?

RT - I dont know how else we are to interpret headlines like "Liberal MP moves to to ensure Nazi rights".  

I sent this to Martin in email, but I figured I’d follow up BCL’s posting (with no accusations of RT being a Nazi symathizer from him, I might note, as predicted ) with it here:

Warren K’s response to Kyle at Facebook about the necessity of the HRC’s, despite the Criminal Code provisions still being there was this:

The CC provisions have been relied upon a handful of times in the past three decades, but there have been very many more instances of hate activity in that time. (The provisions require an Attorney General’s approval, and that is rarely given.) The Human Rights Act was designed to permit society to express disapproval of hatred, without involving the serious penal sanctions found in the CC, among other things

BCL — You’re being a little unfair in excluding off the bat the most notable cases of abuse that come to mind. I might also point out that these are the ones we know of. It’s quite conceivable there are many other complaints that haven’t received any where near the media attention of these ones, or that simply failed to get off the ground altogether. What happened to the most recent kafuffle with Whatcott and FreeDominion? It was all the buzz a while back and then just appeared to melt away into nothing…  That one seemed especially bogus to me, particularly given that the complainant wasn’t even connected in any way at all to the groups alleged to being the subject of the hate-mongering in question.
I’ve seen the flow-charts detailing the assessment/evaluation/adjudication process for complaints and, while thorough in the extreme, it’s completely absurd. The burden on the accuser is minimal, the cost to the accuser is next to nothing and, there’s no consequence should the charge prove to be utterly baseless. Well, if that isn’t an invitation to abuse, I don’t know what is. As for the accused, well you yourself “imagine this whole case is keeping Ezra’s SUV full of gasoline” so where is the harm or penalty involved if indeed your suspicion is correct. If anything, it only serves to bolster my contention that these cases just serve bolster the fortunes and reputations of those subject to scrutiny and elevates the miscreants in question to the status of martyrs. Also, sorry to disabuse you of the illusion that going before a tribunal is “cheaper” but legal representation carries the same costs regardless of what venue justice is being meted out and the process can be an expensive one (Ezra seems to have really gone overboard in this department, but that’s another matter) nonetheless.

BCL -
I think you’re missing the biggest issue. 
1 man has filed 50% of the cases under section 13.  This man is Richard "lucy" Warman.  I call him Lucy because (supposedly) he would go to sites like stormfront and instigate hate speech, then use the tribunals to punish  (and profit from) those who joined him.

I don’t see how any "liberal" could ever support a system in which the assumption of guilt is placed on the defendant.  How could someone like yourself support a system where only the accuser (in Lucy’s case, a former HR employee) has his/her fees paid for?

Keep in mind that the complaints levied against Steyn are directly in reference to QUOTATIONS he made in his book.  That’s right: quotations, of a Norwegian Imam.  Is it your opinion that its ok to be tried in an extra-legal tribunal for quoting someone else?

Oops. That was directed at BCL. Never mind.

RT wrote:

"BCL — You’re being a little unfair in excluding off the bat the most notable cases of abuse that come to mind. I might also point out that these are the ones we know of.
[...]
What happened to the most recent kafuffle with Whatcott and FreeDominion? It was all the buzz a while back and then just appeared to melt away into nothing…"

What happened was the complainant dropped the case very early on.  What’s interesting is that this occured after a bit of an intimidation campaign by FreeD.  They posted her email, maybe a picture or two (I can’t 100%  remember), and maybe a phone number.  The interesting thimg is, no matter what the validity of the original complaint, I have been told that she could probably have nailed them just for their subsequent behavior.

But I am assuming from your response that your answer to my question is "no I haven’t paid any attention to anything other than the Levant and Steyn cases, and base my opinion of the relevant legislation on their objective, unbiased writings on the topic"

RT also wrote, after some stuff about flow charts etc.:

"Well, if that isn’t an invitation to abuse, I don’t know what is…"

As opposed to what?  I could call crime stoppers now from a public phone booth and tell them you were carrying dope.  I DID, when I was a college student, repeatedly fink my neighbor out to the municipal gov. after they bitched about our lawn not being cut.  Think we should abolish municipal by-laws and crime stoppers?

BCL — Yeah, I heard rumblings about the campaign of intimidation that was being waged by the folks at FD (or some of their subscribers, I should say). Whether that was actually the case, or just a lot of talk, I’m not sure. I don’t know that I can subscribe to the notion that “she could probably have nailed them just for their subsequent behavior” because if this was the case, then it naturally begs the question of why she didn’t, or at least why the authorities didn’t consider it to be actionable under the Criminal Code…

Regarding your finking, I can’t say that speaks very highly to your character, but for the sake of argument, of course the law is subject to abuse (the realm of liable is a classic case in point in that regard), so too are other things. I could phone in a phony bomb threat or set of a fire alarm just for fun, but of course that doesn’t mean I think we should do away with the police or fire departments. However there are usually penalties for such actions, just as there are for providing false information or leveling patently false accusations against another person. And again, I’ll come back to the contention that the evidentiary standard in criminal matters tends to be higher than would seem to be the case with the HRC in responding to complaints. As I understand the process, they are required to look into these matters, and because of the nature of the complaints, legal representation is usually required at every stage (i.e., its more than a simple matter of, say, determining one’s whereabouts at a certain time or whatever). 

Gayle — I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. You clearly feel that this provision of the HRA still has validity and should be preserved. I think that it’s doing more harm than good by unintentionally providing a platform from which the objectionable opinions of strident blowhards and activists can be amplified, all the while wrapped in the mantle of “free speech.” In such cases, all too often it seems that we end up discussing the issue of “free speech” rather than the substance and nature of the questionable comments themselves.

Actually RT, I do not really hold an opinion one way or another on this provision, though I suppose I do trust the legal system. There is no ideal solution here and I firmly believe the right to express yourself freely must be balanced with the rights of individuals to be free from expressions of hate simply because of the colour of their skin.

My point was not to argue against your opinion. I think I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect that even if I do not share that opinion. I think your points are valid.

However, I find it necessary to dispute some of your statements. You may not like the provision, but that does not make it "vague" in the legal sense (there is a whole line of cases on statutory interpretation and whether legislation is "void for vagueness"). This provision is no different than thousands of other provisions whose operation affects individuals. Nor is the costs argument valid, unless you are prepared to extend that argument to all circumstances.

ALW - I think it owuld help your understanding if you took all my comments in context. I was referring to the stated purpose of section 13(1). I posted a portion of what the SCC said about that purpose above. I will post the entire quote here:

"It is this purpose — the promotion of equal opportunity unhindered by discriminatory practices based on, inter alia, race or religion — which informs the objective of s. 13(1). In denoting the activity described in s. 13(1) as a discriminatory practice, Parliament has indicated that it views repeated telephonic communications likely to expose individuals or groups to hatred or contempt by reason of their being identifiable on the basis of certain characteristics as contrary to the furtherance of equality.

40 Parliament’s concern that the dissemination of hate propaganda is antithetical to the general aim of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not misplaced. The serious harm caused by messages of hatred was identified by the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, commonly known as the Cohen Committee, in 1966. The Cohen Committee noted that individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological distress, the damaging consequences including a loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct. This intensely painful reaction undoubtedly detracts from an individual’s ability to, in the words of s. 2 of the Act, "make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have". As well, the Committee observed that hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners, even if subtly, that members of certain racial or religious groups are inferior. The result may be an increase in acts of discrimination, including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and even incidents of violence.

41 Since the release of the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, numerous other study groups have echoed the Cohen Committee’s conclusion that hate propaganda presents a serious threat to society. Affirmation of the Committee’s findings may be found in the 1981 Report Arising Out of the Activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia by John D. McAlpine, the 1984 report of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, entitled Equality Now!, the Canadian Bar Association’s Report of the Special Committee on Racial and Religious Hatred, also released in 1984, and the 1986 Working Paper 50 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, entitled Hate Propaganda . It can thus be concluded that messages of hate propaganda undermine the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contribute to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality.

42 In seeking to prevent the harms caused by hate propaganda, the objective behind s. 13(1) is obviously one of pressing and substantial importance sufficient to warrant some limitation upon the freedom of expression. It is worth stressing, however, the heightened importance attached to this objective by reason of international human rights instruments to which Canada is a party and ss. 15 and 27 of the Charter .

43 The stance taken by the international community in protecting human rights is relevant in reviewing legislation under s. 1, and especially in assessing the significance of a government objective (Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038 ). Both Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Can, T.S. 1970 No. 28, and Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966), as well as the jurisprudence of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 (1950) (see, e.g., Eur. Comm. H.R., Applications Nos. 8348/78 and 8406/78, Glimmerveen v. Netherlands , October 11, 1979, D.R. 18, p. 187) demonstrate that the commitment of the international community to eradicate discrimination extends to the prohibition of the dissemination of ideas based on racial or religious superiority.

44 Indeed, in 1983 a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee by Mr. Taylor and the Western Guard Party alleging a violation of the freedom of expression guaranteed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was rejected on the ground that "the opinions which Mr. T. seeks to disseminate through the telephone system clearly constitute the advocacy of racial or religious hatred which Canada has an obligation under article 20(2) of the Covenant to prohibit": Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canada , Communication No. 104/1981, Report of the Human Rights Committee, 38 U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 40 (A/38/40) 231 (1983), para. 8(b), decision reported in part at (1983), 5 C.H.R.R. D/2097 . This conclusion is indicative of the approach taken in the realm of international human rights, and thus emphasizes the substantial weight which must be given the aim of preventing the harms caused by hate propaganda.

45 That the values of equality and multiculturalism are enshrined in ss. 15 and 27 of the Charter further magnify the weightiness of Parliament’s objective in enacting s. 13(1). These Charter provisions indicate that the guiding principles in undertaking the s. 1 inquiry include respect and concern for the dignity and equality of the individual and a recognition that one’s concept of self may in large part be a function of membership in a particular cultural group. As the harm flowing from hate propaganda works in opposition to these linchpin Charter principles, the importance of taking steps to limit its pernicious effects becomes manifest."