Evidence of meeting #31 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was believe.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kathleen Mahoney  Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Barrister and Solicitor, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Judy Hunter  Staff Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association
Mark Toews  Member, Canadian Bar Association
Mark Freiman  Past President, Canadian Jewish Congress, President, Canadian Peres Center for Peace Foundation, As an Individual

12:20 p.m.

Prof. Kathleen Mahoney

Thank you very much. I'm very honoured to have been asked to participate in your deliberations.

I am also appearing as an individual, but I do have some background in this area. I have provided you with a very detailed paper that I have written on this topic, and I hope you will have a chance to read it.

In terms of my personal involvement in the past, I was representing the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund twenty years ago in both the Taylor case and the Keegstra case emanating out of Alberta, which are the leading cases today in both the criminal law and the Canadian Human Rights Act's section 13. From that perspective, I'm very familiar with the legal background, as well as the factual background, of both of those cases.

Today I'd like to address basically three points. A number of the points that I could address have been addressed by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Jewish Congress, so what I'm going to talk about first of all, essentially, is that hate expression is more than expression. Hate expression is a practice of discrimination that actually causes harm to vulnerable groups and to society. Those harms include both physical and psychological harms.

Hate speech perpetuates stereotypes and creates barriers to the social, economic, and political participation of the groups that it targets. It silences people, so it affects freedom of expression of others. It is proliferating and increasingly accessible on the Internet, which has already been mentioned, and it comes before you as an issue as hate speech is increasingly proliferating at an alarming rate. For example, 15 or so years ago, there was one hate site on the Internet. Today there are over 5,000 such sites. That's my first point.

The second point I wish to address is that hate speech targets women. Sometimes this group is not recognized as being targets of hate propaganda. It's important because women are not protected otherwise than in human rights legislation. I'm thinking particularly about lesbians. I'm thinking about black women and how they've been portrayed in hate speech. I'm thinking about aboriginal women and how they've been degraded in various forms of hate speech. I'm thinking about people with disabilities and how hate speech has promoted eugenics and euthanasia for this group of people. So I want to focus some of your attention, please, on women as a group.

Thirdly, I want to talk about the fact that the courts have recognized that this type of expression is more than expression. It amounts to the types of harms that we're used to recognizing in other forms and under a different kind of language.

Those are the three points I want to talk about.

First of all, over many years, Parliament—including yourselves—has identified equality as one of the most important underlying values and principles of a free and democratic society. In fact, the courts have said that equality is the genesis of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. I think what they meant by that was that the rights and freedoms in the charter are not very meaningful if all Canadians cannot experience them, and that includes freedom to speak, freedom of speech.

The court has further told us that the charter itself must not be used as an instrument of better-situated individuals to roll back legislation that has as its object the improvement of the condition of less-advantaged individuals. I would suggest to you—and the highest courts in the land have agreed with me—that the government protection of equality and expressive rights in section 13 addresses this very point.

In other words, government has acted against discrimination and for equality by creating section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In that sense, it's quasi-constitutional legislation, because it's equality-seeking, and in that sense it's of profound importance to Canada's fundamental basic values.

Now, the point on harm is one that I want to stress. Hate speech causes harm to society, it causes harm to the groups that it targets, and it also causes harm to individuals. Its reach has increasingly been expanded through the Internet, which section 13 expressly addresses.

With respect to women, when women are targeted, hate expression degrades and depicts them in ways that are specifically gendered. The harmful effects....

Sorry?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

You have one more minute for your opening address.

12:25 p.m.

Prof. Kathleen Mahoney

All right.

I'll skip to what I think is the most important part of this debate, which is often misunderstood, and that is that hate speech is a practice of discrimination. It's more than just speech. This is where the argument lies in the popular media, in Maclean's magazine, etc. They treat hate speech as just a form of expression. It's not.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that hate speech is more than that. They've recognized it in, for example, sexual harassment. People can sexually harass, be punished for it, and have their so-called speech limited if they have poisoned the work environment. They can do that by posting pornography, for example. It could be argued that posting pornography is freedom of speech, but when it affects a person's ability to work, it's more than that.

Hate speech operates in the same way. Hate speech hurts people. Hate speech interferes with employment. Hate speech interferes with people's freedom of speech. So in that sense we have to, in my humble submission, see hate speech for exactly what it is. It is more than expression. It is a form of discrimination.

I'd be happy to expand upon that in the question period.

Thank you very much for your attention.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Thank you.

You mentioned your submission to the committee. It has not been distributed. The committee members do not have it. It was received yesterday by the clerk. It's only in English and it has to be translated before it can be distributed. So it has not been distributed and the members don't have it.

12:30 p.m.

Prof. Kathleen Mahoney

Yes, I understand that.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Madame Boivin.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Mahoney, I hope to be able to read your submission. Will it be translated? It is true that it is 60 pages, but still. As a francophone, I insist on bilingualism, so I will refrain from making any comments.

Having said that, Ms. Mahoney, I think that your remarks were very clear. I am happy you pointed out that hate speech is not freedom of expression, but a form of discrimination described in the Canadian Bill of Rights. Actually, the Canadian Bill of Rights prohibits it. When we read section 13, we often forget that it refers to section 3. Section 3 is clear. It tells us what the prohibited grounds of discrimination are. Thank you for pointing that out.

And I would also like to thank the other witnesses for joining us today.

Mr. Freiman, I would like you to maybe answer what the presenter of that bill was saying a bit earlier. He kind of stated the fact that it's a serious offence, heinous speech, so it should be dealt with by the Criminal Code. I know you addressed it, but there are still a lot of people who think that if we think it's serious, then the Criminal Code is it. But there could be two different types of legalities around it.

12:30 p.m.

Past President, Canadian Jewish Congress, President, Canadian Peres Center for Peace Foundation, As an Individual

Mark Freiman

That's really what I was trying to get at in some of my comments.

It's probably useful to think again about the distinction as to what is intended to be accomplished. In a criminal offence, we intend to punish the offender. In remedial legislation, such as human rights codes and human rights acts, we intend to improve the conditions of society and to protect individuals.

The kinds of requirements that are to be found in the Criminal Code are extremely important. They are central to our charter in their protection of people accused of crimes. But if the purpose is to protect society from a dangerous mode of conduct, in this case speech, then the Criminal Code is an awkward vehicle to accomplish that.

That in fact is why I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Toews's submission on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association that penalty provisions that currently exist in the Canadian Human Rights Act are anomalous, incongruous, and probably should not be found there.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Thank you.

I was actually just getting to that. I wanted to talk about the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association. You didn't really have time to elaborate, but the CBA's section and committee recommend that section 13 be kept, but that we repeal paragraphs 54(1)(c) and 54(1.1).

Would you like to further expand on your approach to the issue?

12:30 p.m.

Member, Canadian Bar Association

Mark Toews

Sure. I'd be happy to.

As I articulated in my submission, the whole purpose behind the Human Rights Act , as Mr. Freiman has indicated, is to help improve societies and to help change the behaviour. It's also to correct the harm that has been done. Also, it provides the ability to order to cease and desist from what has been going on—the hateful messages that have been communicated—and if necessary to provide certain compensation for the victim. That is to meet the objectives to help encourage equality, foster tolerance, and to try to get rid of discrimination and prejudice.

The penalty takes it outside of those particular objectives. It is not necessary. It is not consistent with the philosophy and underlying values. Therefore, it is no longer consistent with the objectives of the Human Rights Act. It's questionable whether the Human Rights Act should be doing it constitutionally in the first place for a matter such as this.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to give my time to Mr. Rathgeber, since he hasn't had an opportunity.

April 24th, 2012 / 12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Thank you, Mr. Jean, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all the analysts for your appearance here today.

I must say I am concerned, and perhaps disturbed, by each of your testimonies. I believe that any sense of government-regulated free speech is antithetical in a true, free, and democratic society. I think either you believe in free speech within reasonable limits, or you don't.

I'm going to start first with Mr. Toews, from the Canadian Bar Association. You outlined that one of the premises of your group is to uphold the rule of law. I couldn't agree more. I subscribe entirely to that subscription.

My question then is how you can defend a law that states it's an offence when somebody says something or communicates something that is, and I quote, “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.

You don't need actual victims. In somebody's mind it has to likely be contemptuous or hateful. Truthfulness, as noted, is not a defence to the person who is caught in the crossfire of the bureaucrats who are determining what is hateful and what is contemptuous. There are no actual victims and truth is no defence. We can get into the procedure of the human rights commissions, which allow hearsay evidence and no right to cross-examine, but we'll leave that aside.

How is it defensible that something can be hateful without actual victims?

12:35 p.m.

Member, Canadian Bar Association

Mark Toews

The major concern is that this kind of a speech can incite to hate.

It has to be looked at objectively: it will reasonably incite people to hate or to show contempt for the specified group. That is the concern. There doesn't have to be a victim yet. The whole purpose of these provisions is to prevent the abuses from happening, preventing there being victims in the first place.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

So you support punishing pre-crimes?

12:35 p.m.

Member, Canadian Bar Association

Mark Toews

This is not a pre-crime. This isn't a crime. This is a provision in the Human Rights Act to try to correct discriminatory behaviour that undermines the dignity and respect for every individual and undermines equality in our society.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

You just said because it's likely to lead to further damage down the road, so you are advocating punishing something now to prevent something actionable and more harmful down the road.

12:35 p.m.

Member, Canadian Bar Association

Mark Toews

I'm not suggesting any punishing, and that is entirely consistent with--

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Sorry, sanctioning.

12:35 p.m.

Member, Canadian Bar Association

Mark Toews

It's not even sanctioning. This is about correcting an ill that is going on. This is about remedying a problem that could proliferate, that is being spread in society and could incite hatred and contempt.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

The fact that there are no actual victims doesn't concern you.

12:35 p.m.

Member, Canadian Bar Association

Mark Toews

That is not critical to this particular piece, no.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Freiman, you and I have had this conversation before. I'm afraid you are not going to be able to convince me; I know I'm not going to be able to convince you.

I want to draw on your theatre analogy. I will agree that all free speech is subject to limits, and I support the laws against liable and slander. I also support the hate provision speeches in section 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code. I further agree with you that it ought to be actionable if someone yells “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. You and I agree on that. Would you agree with me that if the theatre is empty—I'm the only person in the theatre—I should be allowed to yell “Fire!” as loud as I like?

12:35 p.m.

Past President, Canadian Jewish Congress, President, Canadian Peres Center for Peace Foundation, As an Individual

Mark Freiman

If we're going to confine it to that question, I think yes.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

So you see that there have to be victims for there to be a state-sanctionable compromise on my free speech?