Strengthening hate-speech laws a sad necessity

Public consternation over proposed legal changes to confront online hate speech is legitimate considering the possibility of abuse. If approved, amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and accompanying changes to the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act will fundamentally change how Canadians conduct themselves online. Understandably, in a free and democratic society, maintaining freedom of expression is critical to the very foundation of our national enterprise.

Many argue that curtailing speech and even online behaviour disallows our fundamental rights and freedoms as citizens. To some, it signifies an encroachment of state control reminiscent of tyrannical regimes and even communism. China's recent harsh clampdown on media and individual expression in Hong Kong points to the danger of state power over rights and freedoms.

The Canadian government's new “action to protect Canadians against hate speech and hate crimes” would clamp down on individuals who express “detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” This would apply to public communications by individual users on the internet, including on social media, on personal websites and in mass emails.

That effectively means that journalists, writers and social media influencers could be subject to greater scrutiny.

I get it. As a promoter of free speech who is exposed to a daily dose of diverse opinion, my rational self agrees with the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' contention that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” But there are problems with this perspective, too. As a student of the Holocaust, I have observed that anti-Semitism is an infectious disease that if left unchecked in the social marketplace will rise to the top of hate and discriminatory practice in almost any society. Sunlight does not disinfect anti-Semitism. Sunlight allows anti-Semitism to replicate when it's out in the open.

Statistics Canada reports that the Jewish community is the most targeted religious group for hate crime and hate speech in this country. In 2017, incidents of anti-Semitism and hate crime in general increased by a whopping 47 per cent here. In 2019, police recorded 1,946 criminal incidents that were motivated by hate, representing a seven per cent increase from the year previous. Undoubtedly, these figures have increased under cover of the coronavirus pandemic as people have been spending more time online. During the Hamas-Israel conflict in May, an online torrent of anti-Semitism infected every corner of the planet.

For this reason, when testifying in front of a parliamentary task force about online hate in May 2019, I advocated for a strengthening of our hate-speech and hate -crime laws. As someone who is forwarded regular doses of anti-Semitic content from those who have been targeted, I know that over the past two decades, we have seen a steady increase in online anti-Semitism and hate against many groups. I doubt few would argue this point.

The Jewish community in particular (but certainly not exclusively) has been victimized online beyond measure: Jewish university students were attacked by their peers for merely identifying themselves as supporters of Israel during the latest conflict. Children of Holocaust survivors relive their parents' trauma as they see Holocaust denial jokes flash on their screens. The Jewish community feels aghast when a newspaper displays a caricature of an Israeli soldier with his knee on the neck of a Palestinian. Online anti-Semitic hate speech is pervasive and commonplace.

Given this reality, I have advocated for the reinstatement of Section 13 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to return scrutiny and legal ramification for online hate. Over the years, I have encouraged parliamentarians to strengthen our hatespeech laws to prevent what was a foreseeable marketplace that is spreading hate and intolerance at an accelerated rate. For the victims of online hate speech, regulation of the internet gives them a mechanism to challenge abusive behaviour. But operators of social media platforms and internet service providers must be held accountable, too.

For non-victims, the argument for freedom of speech is an honest and rational reaction to the danger of state expansionism. The inevitable abuse of the law by individuals must come with stiff penalties. But put it this way — if it wasn't for our hate speech laws, the now infamous “Your Ward News” in Toronto would still be publishing its misogynistic and anti-Semitic material in print and online. If it had been allowed to publish under the notion of free expression, it's possible other publications would have sprouted up as well. As someone who has been involved in that case since its inception, I am proud that Holocaust survivors and their children no longer need to find this paper on their doorsteps.

There is no place for hate speech — ever. If we are going to build a more compassionate society, we must become more culturally proficient — while still holding true to our core values of freedom, democracy and human rights. Sadly, and although unpopular in many spheres, regulation of hate speech is today more necessary than ever. Yes, this issue is controversial and all sides of the argument have valid concerns. But the silence over anti-Semitism in the past few weeks has shown us that legal remedies are necessary.

SUNLIGHT ALLOWS ANTI-SEMITISM TO REPLICATE WHEN IT'S OUT IN THE OPEN.