Canadian law against hate-speech found to violate charter

[Nakor]

Globe and Mail

First off, the hate-speech law specifically was section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, here:

Hate messages

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is 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.

Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

Interpretation

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equivalent the US Constitution's Bill of Rights) includes this:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

The former quoted law has been found by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to violate section 2b of the charter by suppressing freedom of expression and is now to be repealed.

What is your opinion on the change? Which takes priority, freedom of speech, or suppression of hate speech? Was this a good move or bad?

[KenseidenXL]

Hate speech is wrong, but should be legal, but speech intended to incite others to act should be illegal; like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.

[Frong]

I think you have to draw the line between what counts as hateful but otherwise harmless speech and what counts as hateful and damaging or defamatory speech. People should be legally free to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid or venomous, but not if it actually harms a specific person or group in some way other than just annoying them once and said person or group is unable to simply avoid it (i.e. it's blared over loudspeakers in a public place or emailed to them or posted on signs across the street from their front door). If it's on TV or in a book or on a website, etc., it can't be counted as targeted, because a victim could just change the channel or not read that book/website or whatever.

I would also add a clause stating that if a victim of hate speech can prove that they've been directly targeted by the same offender three or more times, it could be construed as harrassment and considered illegal. Basically, you can badmouth people if you want, but only if the people you're badmouthing don't have to hear it repeatedly. I look at this in the same manner as people who play rap music at roughly 400 dB. If they want to blow their ears out with that garbage, that's fine, but not if I have no choice but to hear it for more than a minute or two. I have just as much of a right not to be disturbed as they do to to play that crap. I have just as much of a right not to be forced to listen to hate speech as other people do to fling it at me.

[Nakor]

Harassment and noise pollution laws are unaffected by this. "Peaceful public rallies" are allowed, so long as they obey all laws (such as not interfering with traffic/pedestrians, keeping the volume within city regs, etc.) What the repealed law basically forbade was web sites or other similar hubs where hatred of a minority was encouraged. For example, a web site that was out to talk about how <minority> was terrible and so forth but did not cross the line to actually encouraging violence or illegal acts was still previously illegal under these laws, but is now legal.

Encouragement of breaking the law (such as encouraging people to attack or harass people within a minority) is still illegal.

[Frong]

Yeah, if the law outright prohibited websites that existed for the purpose of hate speech but didn't encourage illegal or violent acts, I think I'd have to agree with the interpretation that it's illegal under the charter. There are thousands of anti-Semitic websites out there, and if it were up to me, it would be legally permissible for me to shoot those scumbags in the face, but since I'm not allowed to do that, I simply don't go to those sites and my day goes on as normal.