The Shotgun Blog
« Garth Turner and Dan Baril appear on CTV's Canada AM | Main | Jack Layton is such a bozo: wants to make Punjabi an official language? »
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Leaders on section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
The Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee has managed to get statements from three of the five federal political leaders on a question that matters a great deal to Western Standard readers, and supporters of freedom of expression in general. Just what is their stance on section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act? It is this section of the CHRA that has led to tribunal hearings against Maclean's and our former publisher Ezra Levant.
The question was asked in French, and what follows is a Babelfish translation, which is far from perfect. You can read the original documents by following this link. If someone has a proper French translation, please send it to us.
The question:
Recently, a significant attention was given in the media to the question of the recorded complaints, by calling upon article 13.1 of the Canadian law about the rights of the person who prohibits the use of the Internet in order to diffuse contents likely to expose groups identifiable to hatred or the contempt. Contrary to the vision wanting that this law obliges with straightness (pH.) political at the expense of freedom of expression, the CJC believes that it is a question of an important legal tool to protect the vulnerable minorities from Canada from hatred, racism and intolerance. If he is elected, will your party support the maintenance of article 13.1 like integral part of the law on the rights of the person and which changes specific to the law instead of withdrawing article 13.1, would suggest you to ensure that the law is applied in a suitable way? Also which other solutions your party it would put places from there to fight the diffusion of hatred on Internet?
The answers from Stephane Dion, Gilles Duceppe, and Elizabeth May are below the fold.
Stephane Dion:
Thank you, thank you very much for the question. Well listen, us, one believes much - as you know, one is to it the party of the Canadian Charter of the rights. One believes much in the Canadian law on the human rights and in the Commission of the rights of the person of Canada and one believes that it is something that it is always necessary to reinforce and that was crucial to fight racism, the sexism, the anti-semitism and all the forms of intolerance. Thus you have in us a strong guard of these - of these tools. Now it as should be seen as there were complaints recently saying that them - that the cases which are carried before the Commission were - went too far and blamed freedom of expression and some, by this situation, proposed radical solutions and as - blaming the whole of the process, therefore to throw the baby with the water of the bath. That, one is extremely against that and if there are causes which are frivolous, well the Commission will draw aside them. It is as that which one thinks that the thing should arrive and I believe that some use these fears compared to freedom of expression like a way of putting to tackle the concept in its entirety, the concept of - that one does not accept speeches which are calls to hatred in Canada. Thus not only me, I believe that one must have ramparts against the calls to hatred, of the heinous speeches in our country, but moreover, we propose in our own action plan to also add to it heinous speeches, calls to the hatred which are related to the women, i.e. thus who put the question of the kind, of the sex among the criteria. Thus one wants on the contrary to reinforce the process. Thus I am completely open so that one discusses the thing, so that it is made - that one makes sure that the frivolous demands are refused, but at the same time I do not support and our party does not support some change which could weaken, amend significantly or to even remove article 13.1.
Gilles Duceppe:
We decided against this bill which originait of a liberal deputy, Mr. Martin of memory. Thus we opposed that in a broader way. Me, I think that it is necessary to use all the means to make so that heinous or discriminatory remarks towards minority groups - and I would not say only minority, because too often one speaks about the women the identifier as of the minority groups whereas there is much matter towards the women. It is not a minority group. They are majority in the company but which are also victims of heinous propaganda on multiple occasions. However it is necessary to make in kind find all the ways which one can prevent such remarks. I would raise you however that all the question of Internet is an excessively complex question. It is necessary to maintain what we have like payment or law aiming at preventing the heinous remarks. But more than that how to forward there. And there it is a difficulty which arises not only in Canada but which arises for the whole of planet. And me that worries me enormously.
Elizabeth May:
Oh, it is a very important question. Of course, the Green Party is based on some principles paramount. Around the world for example we have in this moment almost 90 Green Parties around the world, in the other countries of the world. And everyone shares the same principles and protected the human rights it is one of most important in the six principles of the Green Parties of everyone. Then to protect the human rights it is important to have the protection of the vulnerable minorities as you said. And also it is the problem with the Internet - it is the French word also I think, I am not certain - with the Web sites which send messages of hatred with an unacceptable approach. But also we have the rights of free expression. It is a very difficult question. But it is important to have a line where it is clear with some kinds of message on the Internet it is not acceptable. One must stop this website, this approach to send messages against the human rights, for violence. It is not acceptable. Because in the world in this moment we immediately have the possibility of sharing a very dangerous message. It is not a question… it is a question of balance between the free expression and the emission of dangerous messages. It is important to have the law to protect everyone and to stop the messages of hatred which will encourage the hostile actions with the vulnerable groups. I hope that it is clear. Perhaps not. It is difficult because it is a very technical question.
h/t JL
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on October 5, 2008 in Canadian Politics, Freedom of expression | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e20105354c0568970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Leaders on section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act:
Comments
Peter,
Accuse me of nitpicking all you like, but I'm going to keep pointing this out until you get it right:
The complaint against the Western Standard (not Levant) was filed under the Alberta legislation, not under the CHRA. And the tribunal hearing involving Steyn (but naming Macleans) was held by the BC Human Rights Tribunal, not the CHRT.
While there are similarities between the federal and provincial legislation, there are significant differences, includng that all complaints in BC go to hearing unless the respondent brings a successful preliminary application to dismiss. (Maclean's lawyers didn't bring such an application). At the federal level, complaints are screened by the commission.
BTW, the provision you speak of is s.13(1), NOT s. 13.1.
Posted by: trueplease try west | 2008-10-05 3:01:13 PM
Peter,
Accuse me of nitpicking all you like, but I'm going to keep pointing this out until you get it right:
The complaint against the Western Standard (not Levant) was filed under the Alberta legislation, not under the CHRA. And the tribunal hearing involving Steyn (but naming Macleans) was held by the BC Human Rights Tribunal, not the CHRT.
While there are similarities between the federal and provincial legislation, there are significant differences, includng that all complaints in BC go to hearing unless the respondent brings a successful preliminary application to dismiss. (Maclean's lawyers didn't bring such an application). At the federal level, complaints are screened by the commission.
BTW, the provision you speak of is s.13(1), NOT s. 13.1.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-10-05 3:01:42 PM
The point is that all these provincial kangaroo courts are based on the CHRA. It is monkey see, monkey do, so removing this section from the CHRA most certainly will have a major impact.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-10-05 5:17:21 PM
Sure they will. Because provincial governments move in lock-step with the federal government all the time. Idiot.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-10-05 5:31:20 PM
trueleft, you are the idiot if there is one. Those who can only offer personal insults and attacks simply confirm they are idiots. Get a live and move on.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-10-05 8:48:50 PM
Alain,
Actually, I offered both a saracastic critique and an insult. Normally, I would have stopped at the former, but your suggestion that if the federal government amends the act, all the provinces will do likewise was so amazingly boneheaded - both utterly divorced from political reality and, with your "monkey see, monkey do" line, so poorly expressed -- that the insult seemed richly deserved. And from your response, I can see my instinct was correct.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-10-05 10:05:24 PM
Good God - May actually was the only one of three to put any importance on Freedom of Speech! And Harper? Hello? McFly? What is your stance on freedom of speech? One would think you were only pretending at the NCC.
Posted by: Faramir | 2008-10-06 1:06:21 AM
Truly pathetic. Don't the leaders understand that this is a winning issue... every newspaper in the country opposes s. 13(1), as do a good 90% of those who know about the current situation.
Keith Martin reported strong support for his free speech motion from both Liberals and Conservatives, but the elites in both parties have prevented an honest debate.
I notice that the pro-censorship CJC was called upon to ask this question. Also interesting how Harper's response is conspicuously absent.
When this is how our leaders respond to the issue of free speech, Canada has no right to call itself a free country.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-10-06 2:34:39 AM
The laeaders are as always, vacant on matters of the constitution and the state...they do better making us bribes with the money they steal from us...and again..where's Harper...he's been ducking this issue like sailor with a leaky condom.
The solution is simple: the federal act has to be amended to do two things:
1) take the purpose for the CHRC back to it's original purpose and stop it from creating its own mandates and mission creep
2) Ensure "hate speach" crimes are real and dealt with only in a legitimate court, remove tibunals from the process of judging communications/messaging legality.
I think the best way to approach this is to revisit "Taylor"..this decision is outmoded and irrelevant...the feds can ask the SCC in a reference question for clear relevant definitions and clarification/expansion on the act's limits and scope before they strike committee to reform section 13(1) to ensure their changes are constitutionally sound....then the provinces will be bound to come into constitutional trim with their HRC acts.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2008-10-06 8:25:32 AM
The laeaders are as always, vacant on matters of the constitution and the state...they do better making us bribes with the money they steal from us...and again..where's Harper...he's been ducking this issue like sailor with a leaky condom.
How classy.
Posted by: Conservative | 2008-10-06 2:21:15 PM
WLMR,
Your idea isn't quite as dumb as Alain's (although if you're going to defend speech, you might want to learn to spell it). Problem with your idea of a reference prior to amendment is that the SCC has shown itself quite adept at avoidng being used to provide political cover for controversial political decision. If Harper wants to remove, s. 13(1), he'll have to spend the political capital. If he tries to ram his decision down the throat of the provinces via a reference, the SCC will find some way to tell him to take a hike.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-10-06 9:59:24 PM
Obama has been relentless in seducing America's youth, and controlling the media. What's next? ... teaching our children to turn their parents in to the Gestapo? These tactics have been used before ... and, they're right out of the Nazi and Islamic/madrassa play books. Wake up America ... the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Posted by: Howard | 2008-10-20 1:27:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.