Winnipeg Jewish Review  
Site Search:
Home  |  Archives  |  Contact Us
 
Features Local Israel Next Generation Arts/Op-Eds Editorial/Letters Links Obituary/In Memoriam
HATE ON THE INTERNET

(Remarks prepared for delivery to the Ottawa Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, November 8, 2010, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Canada)

by David Matas, November 21, 2010

Combating incitement to hatred on the internet requires a variety of responses from a host of actors. I am aware here that I am addressing mainly Parliamentarians whose primary responsibility is legislation. So I will confine my suggestions to legislative responses.

Right now in Canada there is a good deal of angst about the proper legislative response to hate on the internet. There is a lively debate about whether the law should be repealed or changed, and, if changed, how.

Canada has two internet specific provisions in its legislation relating to hate. One is to be found on the Criminal Code. The second is to be found in the Canadian Human Rights Act. There are also generic anti-hate provisions in a number of provincial statutes which have been used to engage hate on the internet. 

In general, the Canadian criminal law allows for private prosecution. However, that is not true of the Criminal Code prohibition against incitement to hatred which has a specific exception. 

Federal law requires consent of the attorney general in the province with jurisdiction over the offence before a prosecution can commence. Attorney General consent for hate prosecution is extremely rare. Many Attorneys General, even in the face of clear cut breaches, have taken a free speech absolutist position, and refused consent for philosophical or ideological reasons. 

Nonetheless, in non-internet cases, there is the odd consent. There has never been, in contrast, consent, for an internet hate offence, though the amendment which provided for the internet specific offence is now nine years old. In light of the large amounts of hate on the internet, this complete absence of legal activity means that the criminal law is a dead letter.
 
Civil remedies before human rights commissions and tribunals have the value of specialization. Incitement to hatred is a form of denial of equality. Human rights commissions and tribunals are familiar with the harm and wrong of incitement to hatred. Police and prosecution units which deal with a wide variety of unrelated behaviour have little sense of the mischief the law is designed to combat. That problem can be overcome by dedicated units.  These units, regrettably, are few and far between. 

The civil remedies in the federal and provincial human rights laws have unfortunately manifested the opposite problem, too easy access generating abuse. This abuse is led to the effective suspension of their activity.

Three incidents in particular generated concerns about the law. The Alberta publications Western Standard and Jewish Free Press republished the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed initially published by The Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. In February 2006, Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities filed a similar complaint.

Soharwardy settled his complaint with publisher Richard Bronstein of the Jewish Free Press in March 2007 after mediation. In February 2008, he dropped his complaint against the Western Standard and publisher Ezra Levant in reaction to the widely expressed view that pursuit of the complaint amounted to an undue restriction on freedom of expression. The Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint by the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities in August 2008 as being without merit.

The Canadian Islamic Congress filed a complaint against Maclean's magazine with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission for publishing in October 2006 an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. The Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint on jurisdictional grounds, while the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the excerpt was polemical but not extreme. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decided in October 2008 that the article was not likely to expose the complainants to hatred.

In February 2004, Shahina Siddiqui filed a complaint against B'nai Brith Canada with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission for sponsoring a presentation in October 2003. Shahina Siddiqui herself was not present at the Winnipeg seminar but based her complaint on what she had been told about the seminar. The evidence of the alleged violation came from sources who have never been disclosed to B'nai Brith, despite a disclosure request. The complaint was dismissed in March 2009, five years after it was made on the ground that it had "no reasonable basis in the evidence".

The complaints against Levant, Steyn and Maclean's were heavily publicized and controversial; leading to charges that the system of dealing with complaints was so weighted against those the objects of complaint as to chill free expression.  In response the Canadian Human Rights Commission in June 2008 appointed Professor Richard Moon to conduct a study of how best to address hate messages on the internet. 

Professor Moon recommended in October 2008 that the prohibition against hate on the internet in the Canadian Human Rights Act be repealed and the law banning hate on the internet should be restricted to the Criminal Code. He proposed specialized provincial police hate crimes units and removal of the requirement of the consent of the Attorney General, "if it appears that the consent requirement is a barrier to the prosecution of serious hate speech cases".

In the alternative Professor Moon recommended changes in the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibition if it were to be kept. He proposed
i) limiting the prohibition to expression which threatens, advocates or justifies violence,
ii) including an intention requirement, and
iii) ending the investigation and assessment of formal complaints from outsiders and giving the Commission the exclusive right to initiate an investigation and conduct a case. This recommendation, in my view, is inconsistent with the conditional recommendation to remove the consent of the Attorney General for criminal prosecutions.
 
Richard Warman had initiated complaints against a sequence of neo-Nazi websites which both the Commission and then a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal had determined to be well founded. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis in September 2009 determined that the latest of these complaints, against Marc Lemire, was, in part, well founded. He nonetheless dismissed the complaint on the basis that the law was unconstitutional. 

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of John Ross Taylor, had held in 1990 that the law was constitutional, (a case I argued for an intervener, the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada). Since that decision the law had been amended, in 1998, to add a penalty provision. Previously the law allowed only a prohibition order, prohibiting the continued posting of the offending material. Tribunal member Hadjis found that the limits on administrative tribunals in dealing with unconstitutionality prevented him from severing the penalty provisions and finding them inoperative. So he refused to apply the provisions in their entirety.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Conway  decided in June 2010, that is to say after the Lemire decision, set out a new approach for the relationship between administrative tribunals and the Charter. The result is to give the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal a power to deal with the constitutionality of the penalty provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act Tribunal member did not think he had.

Richard Warman, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and supporting interveners have sought judicial review of this decision in the Federal Court. That judicial review appli

 
<<Previous Article       Next Article >>
Subscribe to the Winnipeg Jewish Review
  • Jewish Federation of Winnipeg
  • Coughlin Insurance
  • Joyce Rykiss
  • Munroe Pharmacy
  • GTP
  • Jim Muir
  • Bruce Shefrin
  • Fair Service
  • Eddie's Gravel Supply Ltd.
  • Sveinson Construction
  • The Home Store
  • John Bucklaschuk
  • Tyler Bucklaschuk
  • John Wishnowski
  • Stringer Rentals & Power Products
  • JLS Construction
  • Roseman
  • Dakota Chiropractic Office
  • Holiday Inn
  • Maric Homes
  • Artista Homes
  • Southwynn Homes
  • Tradesman Mechanical
  • Imperial Soap
  • Winnipeg Drapery
  • Ingrid Bennett
  • Chochy's
  • Interlake Service
  • Hugh's Electric
  • Lakeside Roofing
  • KC Enterprises
  • Bulrushes Gallery
  • Gulay Plumbing
  • Trevor Arnason Plumbing
  • Accurate Lawn & Garden
  • Dr. Gary Levine
  • Fetching Style
  • Winnipeg Prophecy Conference
  • Thorvaldson Care
  • Country Boy Restaurant
  • Total Lighting Sales
  • Shenanigan's On The Beach
  • Nikos
  • Sarel Canada
  • Santa Lucia Pizza
  • Whytewold Emporium
  • Center for Near East Policy Research
  • Roofco Winnipeg Roofing
  • Center for Near East Policy Research
  • Nachum Bedein
Rhonda Spivak, Editor

Publisher: Spivak's Jewish Review Ltd.


Opinions expressed in letters to the editor or articles by contributing writers are not necessarily endorsed by Winnipeg Jewish Review.