What is "hate speech", as a specialized legal term? A Canadian politician defending laws against hate speech as not really infringing on freedom of speech quotes the Canadian supreme court as saying " 'hatred' connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation". Thus, in Canada, someone like Mr. Chait who publicly admits that he detests George Bush apparently would be liable to criminal penalties (or would be if Bush were gay or black or female, at least). But we all know the true legal meaning of "hate speech:": it is speech that liberal judges hate. (Am I going too far? Well, you must certainly grant that hate speech, in practice, is not speech that conservative judges hate. It turns out that hate speech either never actually exists, or it is speech by the kind of persons that liberals detest and vilify with extreme intensity.)
I found some follow-up evidence on the Hugh Owens case in Saskatchewan that shows it is not likely to be an isolated incident. I am not sure I am good enough to get a job at the University of British Columbia or the University of Toronto, probably the two best Canadian universities, but I am sure, now, that I would not accept a job offer--- it would be illegal for me to express my political views. Oddly enough, I would feel safer at Peking University or Moscow University. I wonder if Oxford and Cambridge are safe? I was thinking of them for my next sabbatical. At any rate, here is a transcript of the political debate (with my boldface):
... Let's talk about this so-called high threshold, and let's look at comparable
Saskatchewan human rights legislation and a decision of December 2002, the Hugh Owens
decision.
In paragraph 7 of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
decision in the appeal of that particular case, we have the description of the offence:
| The bumper sticker in the advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side of the sticker. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle of the sticker, with a symbol on the right side of the sticker. The symbol on the right side was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top. |
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission found--and the court upheld this--that this advertisement violated the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code because it exposed homosexuals to hatred. They made a specific legal finding that it exposed homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. They then want on to say that because the board--and the court agrees--that the stick figures, when combined with the Biblical passages, would expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule. Mr. Justice R.L. Barclay, of the Court of Queen's Bench, later went on to say:
| In my view, s. 14(1) of the Code is a reasonable restriction on the appellant's right to freedom of expression and religion as contemplated by s. 2(a) of the Charter. See Bell, supra. In Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825, La Forest J. held that the analysis under s. 1 of the Charter is the same whether the legislation infringes the respondent's freedom of expression or freedom of religion. |
And the Supreme Court of Canada held that the analysis under section 1 of the charter is the same whether the legislation infringes the respondent's freedom of expression or freedom of religion.
Today, Mr. Piragoff, we have Mr. Robinson saying there is no legal foundation for this, that this is all scaremongering, that thousands of Canadians have written to members of Parliament on the basis of absolutely no legal foundation. Mr. Robinson knows of the existence of this case, but we already know what Mr. Robinson thinks about this.
I want to hear from you on the meaning and significance of this kind of case that deals directly with the issues that we are considering. Ostensibly, the court has dismissed the high threshold that Mr. Robinson was talking about, has found that there was hatred, has found that there was exposure to ridicule, on the simple basis of actually just citing Biblical verses and using a universal sign superimposed over two male stick figures holding hands.
It's astounding to me that, in a free country, something like this would be considered hate. We may well disagree with that advertisement, but is that how restrictive...? I'm concerned about the chilling effect of this kind of decision. And this isn't the only decision that tends to and supports this line of reasoning. I'd like to hear from you on that, Mr. Piragoff.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: We have to be careful when we look at what different courts or human rights commissions might say in Canada. The Owens case was dealing with the human rights legislation of Saskatchewan, not the Criminal Code. Human rights legislation is interpreted more liberally than the Criminal Code is. Secondly, the standard of proof under human rights legislation is significantly less than that required under the Criminal Code. Proof under the Criminal Code is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't know what definition of "hatred" was used in the Owens case, but the current bill that I've been asked to speak on deals with the effect of putting an amendment into sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code. I can only speak about how the courts have interpreted the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court of Canada has given a definition "hatred" might mean under provincial legislation might change in each province. I can't comment on that with respect to the Criminal Code.
�
(1140)
The Chair: Mr. Toews wants to follow up, and then you'll have a chance to respond, Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Vic Toews: I'll be back to Mr. Robinson in my later questioning. I have the Department of Justice before me now.
Again on the issue of hatred, what do you see as the definition of "hatred"? Can any one of your members comment on what the substantive definition of "hatred" is as it is applied in the context of human rights legislation and in the context of the Criminal Code? Are you prepared to answer that question?
Mr. Donald Piragoff:
I can repeat what hatred means in the context of the Criminal Code. In Keegstra, the
Supreme Court was very clear in saying that
| "hatred" connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation. |
| ...an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation. |
So it's not just simply a dislike, it is a higher level of dislike bordering on detestation or actually subjecting or creating the conditions that subject these people to ill treatment.
That's the Criminal Code definition of "hatred". I'm not an expert on human rights legislation, so I can't comment on human rights definitions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Svend Robinson: I would just briefly respond to two points.
In addition to the definition of "hatred" that Mr. Piragoff has referred to, Chief Justice Brian Dickson also said in the Keegstra case, "The hate-monger must intend or foresee as substantially certain a direct and active stimulation of hatred against an identifiable group." That was the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, so the suggestion that one might merely quote from Biblical passages and somehow be promoting hatred under the terms of the Criminal Code is just completely without legal foundation.
...Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Robinson, in your opening remarks, you alluded to the campaign waged against your proposed legislation. What would you say to people with strong religious convictions who are afraid that the Holy Bible will be labelled hate literature? What would you say to them to assuage their fears?
�
(1145)
Mr. Svend Robinson: That's a very important question. Three fundamental arguments can be advanced to counter this situation. Unfortunately, some of these fears are being fueled by a handful of members of this committee and this is quite unacceptable. I can advance three arguments.
First of all, there's the definition of hate and hate propaganda. Mr. Piragoff has already talked about that. It's not just a matter of quoting a text. The aim in so doing must be the active promotion of hate or violence. That's the critical element. It's not simply a matter of quoting an excerpt from the Bible, the Koran or some other religious text.
Secondly, the legislation includes safeguards for religious beliefs. This is clearly stated in the Criminal Code. In the case of religion, safeguards are in place. And if these two arguments haven't convinced you, I have a third one.
In order to charge a person under this legislation, the Attorney General must consent to this in person. That's very clear. It's bizarre and absurd to imply that an attorney general would be prepared to consent to charges being laid against a person who might quote the Bible, for example. That is ludicrous.
Mr. Richard Marceau: So, if I understand correctly, your bill would not prohibit a person from quoting from the Bible that God does not condone homosexual relations, for example.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Absolutely not.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine then. Thank you.
This is typical liberal tactics, of the sort classically illustrated by the U. S. Civil Rights Act. The Act's proponents denied explicitly that the Act required (or perhaps even, allowed?) affirmative action, but a few years later, the judges ignored all that. The tactic is to make the language vague, claim it has a narrow meaning, and then let your allies in the judiciary do the dirty work for you. In the Canadian case, the judges have started in a bit too early, alerting a few people, so the politicians have to pretend that it's just those hick judges in Saskatchewan, and the more moderate judges of, say, Ontario or British Columbia would never do such a thing.
Apparently the Canadian press is not very interested. One article says
Imagine "the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Quran hate literature and
forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book's more astringent
passages in an ad in a daily newspaper," wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta,
daily.
The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province's human
rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations
of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.
A columnist noted in the Edmonton Journal last week that the Dec. 11 ruling generated
virtually no news stories and "not a single editorial."
I don't know that that claim is fair. Mightn't the devout Muslim be punished just the
same as the devout Christian?
[ permalink, http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.11.14b.htm ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.