Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise

Good commentary by David Butt on Canada’s hate speech law:

For a prosecution to go ahead, all of these conditions must be met:

1. The hate speech must be the most severe of the genre;

2. The hate speech must be targeted to an identifiable group;

3. It must be public;

4. It must be deliberate, not careless;

5. Excluded from hate speech are good faith interpretations of religious doctrine, discussion of issues of public interest, and literary devices like sarcasm and irony;

6. The statements must be hateful when considered in their social and historical context;

7. No prosecution can proceed without approval of the attorney-general, which introduces political accountability because the attorney-general is a cabinet minister.

Even with these limits, the Canadian hate law still clearly curtails free expression. But the Supreme Court has not struck it down. Why? Four main reasons. First, our constitution protects not only free expression, but multiculturalism and equality as well. So to read the constitution holistically, we cannot permit one protected freedom to undermine other rights and freedoms enjoying equal status.

Second, the Supreme Court recognized the insidious impact of propaganda campaigns that gain social traction and incrementally dull our rational faculties and empathy. Perhaps paternalistic, but the court is saying sometimes we need to be protected from our baser and stupider selves.

Third, the courts have said that even if a hate speech prohibition is never used, it has symbolic value, like that framed mission and values statement on the wall of most businesses, that stares silently down at the workers while they work.

Fourth, hate speech has no redeeming value.

….So it may be that our hate speech law was a silent point of resonance with the values, not the legal obligations, that motivated the media outlets who chose not to publish.

Is that sufficient reason for our hate speech law to exist? Sufficient reason for a law that can impose jail for speaking out? If we take these questions back to our social media haunts, our office water-cooler chats, and our classrooms, freedom of expression in Canada will come out a winner regardless of how opinion is, or is not, divided.

Canada’s law on hate speech is the embodiment of compromise – The Globe and Mail.

Blatchford: Convicted hate-monger gets added jail time for his Muslim-offending ‘social experiment’

Worth reading. Eric Brazau, the person convicted, certainly seems a nasty piece of work.

Blatchford appears to be critical of the judge’s decision to “throw the book” at Brazeau. Would she be as critical of the judge’s decision had the comments been directed at Jews? Blacks?

Blatchford: Convicted hate-monger gets added jail time for his Muslim-offending ‘social experiment’.

A. Alan Borovoy: Going to court with Ernst Zündel

An excerpt from Alan Borovoy’s book, recounting his experience on some of the more thorny free speech issues when he was head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA):

In 1990, a few years later, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the Keegstra case, and upheld the constitutionality of Canada’s anti-hate law by a narrow margin. When the press asked me for a comment, I noted that, by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, Keegstra had been removed from the classroom, disqualified from the teaching profession, and ousted as mayor of Eckville, Alberta. By then, he was working as a garage mechanic. And so, in addition to the free-speech-chilling implications of the Court’s Keegstra decision, it was gratuitous given all that already had happened.

“In my view,” I said, “he should have been allowed to wallow in the obscurity he so richly deserves.”

A. Alan Borovoy: Going to court with Ernst Zündel | National Post.

Freedom of speech debate sparked by draft law to ban use of ‘Nazi’ in Israel | World news | theguardian.com

Interesting debate on freedom of speech and the proposed ban of “Nazi” in Israel. The US was often criticized in a variety of Holocaust and antisemitism fora for its invoking of the First Amendment as an explanation for not having hate speech laws unlike many countries in Europe and Canada. Always a fine line between freedom of speech and anti-hate speech, although generally better this be handled by social norms and discussion what is acceptable and what is not.

Freedom of speech debate sparked by draft law to ban use of ‘Nazi’ in Israel | World news | theguardian.com.

Bordering on contempt of free speech | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Bordering on contempt of free speech | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun.