B'Nai B'Rith: anti-Jewish, anti-white, fascist animals.

[mr. bungle]

The Canadian Jewish News…

It’s a debate that’s been joined in Canada, off and on, for decades: to what extent, if any, should limits be imposed on free speech to protect minorities from vilification?

At the law offices of Cassels Brock & Blackwell, two proponents of laws that would restrict free expression clashed with a longstanding supporter of unfettered speech in a Sept. 25 lunchtime event sponsored by the Speakers Action Group and the Canadian Jewish Civil Rights Association.

Representatives of B’nai Brith Canada and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (FSWC) pushed for retention of the anti-hate speech provisions of Canada’s Human Rights Act and similar provincial legislation, while Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the law ought to be abandoned.

At the federal level, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act targets statements that are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt, based on prohibited grounds of discrimination, such as their religion.

“The first problem is, what the hell does hatred mean?” Borovoy asked. “Free speech is most important if it creates strong disapproval. Where does strong disapproval end and hatred begin?”

The legislation does not provide for the defense of truth, for lack of intent, or reasonableness of the statement, Borovoy said, suggesting that historian Daniel Goldhagen’s argument that many Germans subscribed to Hitler’s murderous anti-Semitism and were “willing executioners” could lead to hatred against Germans.

And if someone believes Serbs supported Slobodan Milosevic’s atrocities against Kosovo and were willing executioners, would that not expose Serbs to hatred or contempt? And, Borovoy asked, should that view be censored?

“We want [the law] used against the people we don’t like and not against the people we do like. Who do you trust to make that decision?” he asked.

“It’s not as if that’s the only weapon we have, and if we don’t use it, we’re powerless,” he continued.

“This law undermines the value of free speech for our country. This law deprives us of a valuable weapon – speech with which we can denounce our enemies.”

Borovoy said human rights commissions, which adjudicate complaints under Section 13, remain necessary to address discriminatory deeds, “not against unacceptable words.”

Leo Adler, director of national affairs of the FSWC, said Canadians have decided to restrict free speech, and the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that such as restriction is valid. The problem with Section 13 is “the way it’s enforced.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has asked University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon to study the provision. Controversy about the section’s application was prompted by high-profile cases, one of which alleged that the mainstream magazine Maclean’s ran an article by columnist Mark Steyn that promoted contempt of Muslims.

Adler said Canadians live in an “ABC world” of agencies, bureaus and commissions that limit our freedoms. Sometimes these institutions make mistakes. But so does the criminal justice system, and no one contemplates doing away with it, he said.

Adler argued the legislation targets only the most extreme cases, and 99.9 per cent of Canadians don’t produce speech that approaches the venom found on hate websites. At most, 30,000 Canadians might be targeted by the section, he said.