Hate speech law may return
Controversial edict repealed in 2013
OTTAWA• A hate speech law that generated years of heated controversy over free speech before being repealed in 2013 could be making a comeback, at least in some form.
Earlier in January, Justice Minister Jody WilsonRaybould’s office told a B.C. man it is looking at whether Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be revived.
The correspondence was sent to Cran Campbell, a 69- year- old resident of Langley, who has long campaigned against online hate speech. He had recently written to Wilson- Raybould about his troubles fighting back against false allegations posted about him, and had requested that her government bring back Section 13.
“Thank you for your correspondence concerning your personal situation,” says the email signed by WilsonRaybould. It was received by Campbell on Jan. 5. “I note your suggestion that the Government should bring back the legislation that was in the Canadian Human Rights Act to deal with hate messages on the internet. It may interest you to know that this option is currently under review. I will take your comments into consideration.”
The email, first reported by the Langley Times, also points out Canada still has Criminal Code provisions that address hate propaganda.
Asked to confirm that a study of Section 13’s return is underway, Wilson- Raybould’s office acknowledged t he correspondence but would only say that in general, the justice department “frequently reviews our laws and policies.”
“Section 13 of the CHRA, which was repealed by Parliament in 2013, made hate speech a discriminatory practice specifically in relation to telephonic or internet communication,” the statement said. “Reintroducing Section 13 of the CHRA would require careful examination. Nevertheless, hate speech continues to be comprehensively sanctioned through Canada’s criminal law framework.”
Section 13 was removed from the books in June 2013 after a private member’s bill from Conservative MP Brian Storseth was passed. Liberal MP Keith Martin had tabled a bill to repeal Section 13 in 2008, but it stalled and then died on an election call.
The law had been enormously contentious, with critics of all political stripes arguing it was overly broad and had weak safeguards around speech rights. Its defenders said the law was a necessary tool to fight hate messages spread through the internet.
Section 13 made it a discriminatory practice to convey messages over the phone or internet that contain “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt,” as long as those people were “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
Instead of proceeding through the criminal courts, complaints made under Section 13 were dealt with in the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which hears complaints made under the Act. If a Section 13 complaint was upheld, the tribunal could levy fines of up to $ 10,000 and issue cease-and-desist orders.
A series of high- profile controversies eventually brought about the end of Section 13. The most sensational case came in 2007, when a complaint was made against Maclean’s magazine over articles it had published on Islam, including a cover that declared “Why the future belongs to Islam.” Similar complaints alleging discrimination toward Muslims were also made in provincial tribunals.
All of the Maclean’s complaints were eventually dismissed or ruled out-of-order, but it focused public attention on the hate speech provision and generated reams of commentary from critics arguing that prosecutions around hate speech should be conducted by the standards of criminal courts, rather than through human rights tribunals.
In 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Section 13’s penalties — which were added to the Act in 1998 — were an unconstitutional violation of freedom of expression. That decision was ultimately overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2014, which upheld both Section 13 and its penalty regime as constitutional.
But, by that point, Storseth’s bill to repeal Section 13 had already been passed, making the court decision moot in practice — though it did keep the door open for the law’s revival.
Canada has Criminal Code provisions that prohibit t he i ncitement of hatred against identifiable groups, the promotion of genocide and the distribution of hate propaganda. The charges come with heavy penalties, including prison time, and have a special provision that requires the signoff of an attorney-general before being laid.
THIS OPTION IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW.