Justice Committee on May 9th, 2019

[Greg Oliver]

No, we lean towards more of a civil libertarian position with respect to free speech, but we certainly acknowledge that there are limits. This is a great debate to have as to where that red line is. We don't object to government action when needed, if that's your question, and certainly there are a lot of ugly ideologies out there. Also, it's a brand new platform, the Internet. There are all sorts of complexities to this issue that I think we're all grappling with.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

If a certain religion is being targeted.... I totally understand the point and agree that you can attack a person's ideas, but you can't attack the individual's dignity or character or their right to hold those different views. Do you see that it can be a blurry area between calling into question a person's ideas and ideology, and attacking their character and demonizing that individual?

[Greg Oliver]

Would you like to comment on that specifically?

[Leslie Rosenblood]

I think there is a world of difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person. One can attack Christianity without demonizing Christians. Similarly, you could insert Judaism and Jews or Islam and Muslims.

One can take a look at the sacred scroll of your choice and say, "This is why I believe this to be holy" or "This is why I believe this text to be vile”. This does not mean that people who follow the words of that text are necessarily more noble or inherently evil for having genuine beliefs about that scroll.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

On demonizing individuals, do you believe there's a role for government to play in combatting that type of demonization?

[Leslie Rosenblood]

The government already does have laws against the demonization of individuals, whether through slander, libel, defamation and so on. These are existing laws on the books, and we, as a secular alliance, do not object to the existence of these sections of the Criminal Code.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Demonizing an individual because of their beliefs, would you think that's a problem?

[Leslie Rosenblood]

It becomes a personal attack and not one on the ideas of the faith, if it's about the individual, and then you have to take a look at the specific context of what is being is said. Saying, "I do not like you, sir” is not hate speech, but calling for violence against someone would be.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Do you think that these sorts of attacks that can happen online to individuals based on their beliefs can lead some to perhaps see them as less than equal humans?

[Leslie Rosenblood]

There are a lot of hypotheticals in there. I find it hard to draw a connection with an attack on a belief leading directly to demonization of an individual. If you are already directly attacking an individual and it happens to be because of their faith, then it's the attack on the individual that matters and not the criticism of the underlying faith.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Okay, if I—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

You're out of time, Mr. Fraser. Thank you for that.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by addressing the defamatory attack on Representative Brian Sims, who represents the 182nd district in the Pennsylvania House. He has done so in a very distinguished manner for the last seven years. He was the first openly gay man elected to the Pennsylvania Legislature in 2012. He's won awards for his national and state work in advocating equality for the LGBT community but also for his advocacy for women's right to choose. He is sometimes a controversial figure and he has described himself sometimes as, unfortunately, having the mouth of a truck driver, but he has attracted many attacks of the kind we witnessed here this morning. I think Mr. Dennis is lucky that his remarks are protected by parliamentary privilege because they appear to be drawn simply from a Fox News editorial of the last couple of days, which defamed Mr. Sims by comparing him to a drug-addicted vagrant and using other terms I will not dignify by repeating.

One of the times I was most proud to call him a friend was in 2016 when he read into the record in Pennsylvania the names of each of the victims in the Pulse nightclub shooting—victims of a hate crime directed at a community.

I wanted to put that on the record since I was very disturbed by the remarks, which Mr. Sims would have no chance to respond to.

Turning from that to the very interesting question, I think, that Mr. Fraser just raised, I want to go back to Mr. Rosenblood. He was very careful to say that when ideas relate to individuals, he accepts that there has to be a limit.

In my community just last week, we had the rental of a public facility to a group and to a speaker who attack transgender people as threats to all women and threats to children. While in that speech that takes place, there's no identifying of individuals, it does promote hatred against a group. Since you focused on individuals last time, I'd like to ask whether you accept that there is a limit and that there should be criminal sanctions against promotion of hatred against a group and not just individuals.

[Leslie Rosenblood]

Yes, criminal sanctions should not simply be against identified, named individuals. Saying that Leslie Rosenblood should be attacked because he's Leslie would be, or should be in our opinion, equally an offence under the law as saying that all members of the Canadian Secular Alliance, of which I happen to be one, should be attacked. Whether the group in question is one of voluntary membership as in the Canadian Secular Alliance, one of religious affiliation of any sort, or a member of, for example, the LGBT community, calling for attacks or violence against unspecified members of an identifiable group should be subject to criminal sanction to an equal extent as a named individual.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

It's not a federal jurisdictional question, but it's about the use of public facilities for promotion of hatred against groups. Do you believe public entities, whether it's a municipality or even, say, the House of Commons, should have policies in place that would prevent the use of public facilities for the promotion of hatred?

[Leslie Rosenblood]

There are a number of complexities in there. Whether the public facility is open to the public or whether it's reserved for certain specific purposes would have a bearing. Assuming, for the sake of this discussion, it's open to the public, there is no implied approval or endorsement by a municipal, provincial or federal government of the ideology or background of whoever is renting the facility, simply because they're using the facility.

If illegal acts are being conducted as a result of that, they must be prosecuted accordingly. However, should you fall short of that and they simply have highly distasteful or objectionable goals, the government should neither endorse nor condemn speech from people who rent those facilities. The government must remain neutral, again assuming that the facility is open to the public and that no criminal incitement is happening as a result of that transaction.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

In the case I'm referring to, it's pretty clear in the title of the speech that was submitted to the municipality that the purpose was to promote hatred against an identifiable group. I have to say, I was very pleased in my community that there were approximately 15 people attending the talk and approximately 300 people outside demonstrating for tolerance.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Garrison, you're out of time, so just wrap up.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I'll leave it there.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Ehsassi.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To all the witnesses, thank you for your testimony.

My first question is for Mr. Rosenblood and Mr. Oliver.

Having heard your testimony, I understand you're saying we should be amending existing legislation. I also understand you're very much concerned about the overreach of the law. That said, you delved into paragraph 319(3)(b). I understand you're in favour of repealing it. Do you think any such action would restrict freedom of religion?

[Greg Oliver]

Essentially, we don't. We strongly believe in freedom of religion, and of course, the freedom to hold no religion. We think all citizens ought to be treated equally under the law, and that should also include criminal proceedings. If one commits a hate crime, just simply being able to be exempted from prosecution due to the citing of a religious text is inappropriate.

It is not really going to have any impact on religious belief, but it would strengthen equality rights under section 15 of the charter. We think it would be beneficial.

I'll give you a tangible example, since we've been talking a bit about LGBT issues here. Let's say person A calls for violence against male homosexuals, and person B does the same but invokes Leviticus or passages from Hadith. In our eyes, both ought to be prosecuted equally. We think this is a moral principle that ought to be reflected in the Criminal Code.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Speaking of hate speech, which is exempt from prosecution if it's derived from a religious text, do you think this constitutes a violation of equality rights?

[Greg Oliver]

Do you mean as the law currently stands?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Correct.