Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm very pleased and honoured to be here. It's been quite some time since I've had the opportunity to speak on this topic, so I welcome it.
What I've provided you with is a rather dated paper, but I did that quite deliberately. I think what's important here is that first principles must guide the discussion and guide the thinking on these topics. My presentation is going to go back to first principles, and I'm going to talk about them in that context.
Hate discrimination has evolved, as we know, into a global phenomenon, amplified by technological advancements that disseminate hate speech across borders instantaneously. Once limited to local acts, hate now targets individuals and groups worldwide, undermining personal security, equality and even national peace. This necessitates a nuanced approach to balancing rights such as free speech and equality—a word I haven't heard mentioned in the last hour or so—under both domestic and international law.
Gender-based violence, abuse and harassment have been very pronounced in the technological developments I've mentioned. The key concepts and frameworks I'm going to talk about here are in terms of definition and process, harmful impact and international legal obligations.
It's very important to understand that hate discrimination follows a progression, starting with the identification of a group and moving to discrimination on the basis of immutable traits and societal dehumanization. It manifests itself in speech, in acts and in systemic violence, ranging from exclusionary practices right up to genocidal assaults. Far from mere expression, it is a harmful act in itself.
This is critical to any discussion of expression. Expression can become, and often is, an act as well as an expression. Historical examples like the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide and other atrocities highlight the role of hate speech in inciting ultimate violence. Modern statistics underscore its prevalence. Rising hate crimes globally are enabled now by digital platforms that bypass traditional jurisdictional limits.
Treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights require states like Canada to prohibit hate speech that incites violence or discrimination, so balancing competing rights of free expression and protection from harm is central to all frameworks.
In the Canadian context, we have taken a dual legal approach, because Canada employs both criminal and civil laws to address hate discrimination. Criminal provisions target the most egregious acts, such as incitement to genocide, while civil remedies focus on preventing and rectifying discrimination. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that hate speech regulation is compatible with constitutional rights, emphasizing that equality and security are as crucial as freedom of expression.
Challenges in the digital age are the rapid spread of hate online and Canada's inclusion of Internet hate provisions, which demonstrates a commitment to adapting our laws for emerging platforms. Broader implications are that hate discrimination is not just a societal issue, but, as has been said in the earlier session today, a threat to democracy and national security. My paper argues for a balanced, principled approach to maximize freedoms while curbing the corrosive effects of hate.
Just to remind you of the seminal legal decisions, I'm going to quickly describe them.
The Keegstra case was in 1990, 34 years ago. The context was a high school teacher promoting anti-Semitic views in his classroom and requiring students to list and learn his hate ideas. The court upheld the Criminal Code provision prohibiting the willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups when Mr. Keegstra challenged it, .
I personally have been involved in all of the leading hate speech cases, and this is why I have to emphasize them. The significance of the Keegstra case was that the majority ruled that hate speech regulation does align with section 1 of the charter.
While it limits freedom of expression, this limitation is wholly justified to protect individuals and groups from the harmful effects of hate speech, which, in that case, was identified as being on their equality rights, which are also protected by the charter.
The court voted that hate speech—