On September 30, 2011 Brian Storseth, the Conservative Party MP who represents the Alberta riding of Westlock-St. Paul, introduced Bill C-304 in the House of Commons. The bill would abolish section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), that penalizes hate speech or hate messages.
In introducing the legislation, Storseth told the House, "Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle in our democracy and one which Canadians have fought and died for, for over a century."
The backbench MP added that all Canadians must be engaged in protecting freedom of speech and that this freedom cannot be restrained by political correctness.
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
Section 13 of the CHRA is headed by the phrase,"hate messages." The section states that it is a discriminatory practice for a person or persons to communicate "telephonically" or cause to be communicated, a message using a telecommunication facility within the authority of Parliament, anything that is likely to expose a person or persons "to hatred or contempt" if that person or those persons are members of an identifiable group for purposes of discrimination under the Act.
The section was originally put into the Act with regards to the telephone. It was an attempt to stop telephone messages, used by some white supremacist groups, to spew hatred against non-whites. The section was later amended to include computers, the Internet, and other electronic communication devices.
Problems with Section 13 of the CHRA
Human rights legislation was originally introduced to prevent people from being denied such things as housing or a job based upon their being a member of an identifiable minority group. If a black person is denied a job it is because of his race or for another reason. But whether certain words constitute hate speech is much more subjective.
Unlike civil actions for libel or slander, truth is not a defense under section 13. Merely reporting a fact can result in actions being taken before a federal human rights tribunal. And because the human rights tribunal is a quasi-judicial body and not a court, many of the safeguards found in courts of law are not applicable to their proceedings.
Unlike civil or criminal actions, there need not be a victim or a specific person who is aggrieved by speech that is alleged to be hate speech. Anyone can bring an action if he or she feels the words constitute a hate message. As reported in the National Post, activist and former Canadian Human Rights Commission employee, Richard Warman, brought 18 of the 20 complaints under section 13.
The law that was initial proclaimed to deal with telephone lines of hate groups, can now and has been used to go after newspapers and magazines, with almost no safeguards against constraining freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Except for a case involving Mark Lemire, all persons who were alleged to have produced hate messages under section 13, were found "guilty" of breaching the Act. The person who brought the application is entitled to costs and the other party must pay his or her own costs.
A further argument against section 13 is that the Criminal Code of Canada makes certain acts of hate, crimes. Section 318 makes it an offence to promote or advocate genocide against a group. And section 319 makes it a crime to incite hatred that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
As well as the usual safeguards in the criminal justice system, such as the presumption of innocence, truth and the public interest constitute defenses to the charge of inciting hatred. There are no such defenses under Section 13.
In the 2008 case against Mark Lemire, the tribunal ruled that Section 13 is unconstitutional and all other cases have been put on hold for a legal ruling.
Will Section 13 be Taken Out of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
The Conservative government did not introduce the bill; rather it was tabled as a private member's bill by one of their MPs. Private member's bill rarely pass into law.
Whether or not the bill will pass is difficult to know. While the Tories have a majority and that party does not pay as much lip service to political correctness as the opposition parties do, there are risks to the MPs who vote to abolish section 13. They do not want to be seen by the electorate as taking the side of the haters against minority groups.
Arthur Weinreb - Weinreb is an author, associate editor and columnist with Canada Free Press and the Canadian Affairs Feature Writer for Suite 101.
Join the Conversation