Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Last updated

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was a provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act dealing with hate messages. The provision prohibited online communications which were "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination (such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, etc.). Complaints under this section were brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and if the Commission found sufficient evidence, the case would be heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Section 13 was repealed by the Parliament of Canada effective June 2014.

Contents

Legislative history

The Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted in 1977, creating the Canadian Human Rights Commission that investigates claims of discrimination as well as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to judge the cases. Section 13 dealt with hate messages disseminated through federally regulated telecommunications. [1] Parliament twice expanded the scope of section 13. In 1998, a penalty was added for breaches of the section. [2] In 2001, the section was expanded to apply to telecommunications over the internet. [3]

From 2001 until its repeal in 2014, the first part of section 13 read:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. [1]

Suggestions for repeal or reform

In 2008, Liberal MP Keith Martin proposed private Member's motion M-446 urging Parliament to repeal section 13. [4] Martin described the legal test of "likely to expose" as "a hole you could drive a Mack truck through," and said it is being applied by "rogue commissions where a small number of people [are] determining what Canadians can and can't say." Martin also asserted that some of history's most important ideas "were originally deemed to be sacrilegious and certainly in opposition to conventional wisdom. Who's to say that a commission cannot rule those ideas out of order and penalize people for saying or thinking them?" [5]

Irwin Cotler, a Canadian human rights scholar and former minister of justice, (who has expressed support for prohibitions on the incitement of hate and genocide), floated (but did not endorse) the idea that section 13 cases should require the authorization of the Attorney-General, which is the requirement for criminal prosecutions for inciting violence or promoting hatred. [5]

Repeal

On September 30, 2011, during the 41st Parliament, Conservative MP Brian Storseth introduced Private Member Bill C-304, titled An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), which would repeal section 13. Bill C-304 received passed third reading in the House of Commons by 153–136 in a free vote on June 6, 2012. [6] [7] The bill received royal assent on June 26, 2013, coming into force one year later. [8]

Bill C-36

In 2019, the Parliament of Canada Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights issued a report on ending online hate, which included recommending the reinstatement of section 13 or an analogous provision. [9] Bill C-36 (43rd Parliament, 2nd session), introduced in 2021, would have reinstated section 13 in addition to adding a definition of hatred based on Supreme Court of Canada cases. The bill was still at first reading when Parliament was dissolved in 2021. [10]

Constitutional challenges

Canada (Human Rights Commission) v Taylor

In 1990, a 4-3 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of section 13(1). The majority found that the section did infringe freedom of expression under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that the prohibition on hate speech was a justifiable limitation under section 1 of the Charter. [11]

Warman v. Lemire

In the 2009 case Warman v Lemire, [12] the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that section 13 was an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of expression. The Tribunal distinguished the provision in place at that time from the earlier version the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled on, finding that amendments in the intervening years made the provision more penal in nature. [13] Since the Tribunal did not have the authority to declare sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act invalid, it declined to apply section 13 in that case.

The Commission appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal [14] and in February 2014 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled section 13 to be constitutionally valid. The Court reinstated the penalty and the Tribunal's cease and desist order against Lemire for violating section 13. [15]

Section 13 cases

Canadian Islamic Congress and Maclean's

In December 2007, a group of Muslim law students and the Canadian Islamic Congress made complaints about hate speech against Maclean's magazine. The substance of the complaint was that a column by Mark Steyn, "The Future Belongs to Islam", exposed Muslims to hatred and contempt. Complaints were filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint on June 26, 2008. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint on October 10, 2008. [16]

Imam Al-Hayiti

In December 2008, the Commission declined to investigate a complaint against Imam Abou Hammad Sulaiman al-Hayiti, a Montreal Salafist Muslim who was accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals, Western women, and Jews, in a book he published on the Internet. The National Post accused the Commission of selectively applying the Act to Christians and Conservatives, noting that it believes that Al-Hayiti should be allowed to promote any particular interpretation of Islam, or any other religion, but that the Human Rights Commissions practice a politically correct double standard. [17] La Presse published an editorial criticizing the commission for its decision. [18]

Support and criticism

Criticism

Before its repeal, section 13 attracted criticism from those who viewed it as unwarranted infringement on freedom of expression.

Support

Others defended section 13 as a reasonable limit on free expression, given the importance of regulating hate speech.

Moon report

In 2008, University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon was commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prepare a report on section 13. In November 2008, Moon released his report in which he recommended that section 13 should be repealed so that online hate speech is a purely criminal matter. Moon wrote that "The use of censorship by the government should be confined to a narrow category of extreme expression -- that which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group." Moon argued that "it's not practical to deal with what one might generously describe as group defamation or stereotyping through censorship. It's just not a viable option. There's too much of it, and it's so pervasive within our public discourse that any kind of censorship is just overwhelming." [29]

Jennifer Lynch, then chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, stated that Moon's report is "one step in a comprehensive review" and that "we can envision Section 13 being retained with some amendments." Lynch also stated that "our commission exists to protect Canadians from discrimination and I'm fervently going to uphold this core principle." She added that "we're going to strive to find more effective means to protect Canadians from exposure to hate on the Internet." [29]

Keith Martin, the Liberal MP who first proposed scrapping section 13 earlier in 2008, called the recommendation "very courageous" and that "Now it's in Parliament's hands to do something to defend one of our true rights, freedom of speech." [29]

Pearl Eliadis, a human rights lawyer, stated that Moon's statement that section 13 targets only extreme speech "makes explicit what the courts have already said implicitly." However, she opposed shifting the Canadian Human Rights Commission's role to focus solely on violence as opposed to hatred. Eliadis argued that "when we deal with genocide and ethnic cleansing cases in other countries, what does the international community say over and over again? We need a warning system. And one of the warnings is incitement to hatred." However, she wrote that criminal law powers should be used with care, and that the provisions in human rights legislation offer a less drastic option than criminal investigations into hate speech in some circumstances.Speaking Out on Human Rights: Debating Canada's Human Rights System.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Canadian Bill of Rights</i> Federal civil rights statute in Canada

The Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statute and bill of rights enacted by the Parliament of Canada on August 10, 1960. It provides Canadians with certain rights at Canadian federal law in relation to other federal statutes. It was the earliest expression of human rights law at the federal level in Canada, though an implied Bill of Rights had already been recognized in the Canadian common law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Heritage Front</span> Canadian white supremacist group

The Heritage Front was a Canadian neo-Nazi white supremacist organization founded in 1989 and disbanded around 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racial Discrimination Act 1975</span>

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Australian Parliament, which was enacted on 11 June 1975 and passed by the Whitlam government. The Act makes racial discrimination in certain contexts unlawful in Australia, and also overrides state and territory legislation to the extent of any inconsistency.

<i>Canadian Human Rights Act</i> Canadian federal statute protecting human rights

The Canadian Human Rights Act is a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1977 with the express goal of extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds.

Barbara Kulaszka was a Canadian lawyer who practised law in Brighton, Ontario, known for her work with far-right causes, defending alleged Nazi war criminals and Holocaust deniers, and free speech cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span> Overview of religious freedom in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

In Canada, appeals by the judiciary to community standards and the public interest are the ultimate determinants of which forms of expression may legally be published, broadcast, or otherwise publicly disseminated. Other public organisations with the authority to censor include some tribunals and courts under provincial human rights laws, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, along with self-policing associations of private corporations such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of Holocaust denial</span> Overview of anti-antisemitic legislation

Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany perpetrated the Holocaust: a large-scale genocidal campaign in which approximately six million European Jews were systematically murdered throughout German-occupied Europe. Since World War II, several countries have criminalised Holocaust denial—the assertion by antisemites that the genocide was a myth, fabrication or exaggeration. Currently, 17 European countries, along with Israel and Canada, have laws in place that cover Holocaust denial as a punishable offence. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial, including that of the Holocaust. Among the countries that have banned Holocaust denial, Russia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania have also banned Nazi symbols. Any expression of genocide justification is also a criminal offence in several countries, as is any attempt to portray Nazism in a positive light.

Richard Warman is an Ottawa-based lawyer who is active in human rights law. Warman worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) from July 2002 until March 2004. He is best known as the primary instigator of actions related to Internet content under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act against people including white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine were filed in December 2007 by Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Maclean's magazine was accused of publishing eighteen Islamophobic articles between January 2005 and July 2007. The articles in question included a column by Mark Steyn titled "The Future Belongs to Islam", an excerpt from a book written by Steyn.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech by country</span>

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

Marc Lemire is a Canadian. He works closely with leader Paul Fromm, and is the webmaster of the Hamilton, Ontario-based Freedom-Site which he began in 1996. Formerly of Toronto and now living in Hamilton, Lemire was the last president of the Heritage Front organization from January 1, 2001 until the organization folded around 2005. He was employed as a network analyst in the IT department of the City of Hamilton, Ontario from around 2005 until 2019, when he agreed to resign.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hate speech laws in Canada</span> Canadian laws relating to hate speech

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.

The publishing of any "blasphemous libel" was a crime in New Zealand under Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961 which allowed for imprisonment for up to one year. However, Section 123 protected all publications and opinions on any religious subject expressed in good faith and decent language against prosecution and specified that prosecution may proceed only with the leave of the attorney-general.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of expression in Canada</span>

Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, in practice the Charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable" limits censoring speech. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the militant political opposition.

<i>Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the constitutionality of the hate speech provision in Saskatchewan's human rights legislation.

<i>An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code</i> Canadian federal law relating to gender identity

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code is a law passed in 2017 by the Parliament of Canada. It was introduced as Bill C-16 of the first session of the 42nd Parliament. The law adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and also to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, deals with offensive behaviour "because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin" in Australia. It is a section of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which was passed by the Australian Parliament during the term of the Whitlam government and makes racial discrimination unlawful in Australia. Section 18C was added by the Keating government in 1995. The Section has been controversial and subject to much debate.

<i>Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission</i> South African legal case

Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another is a 2021 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the constitutionality of a statutory prohibition on hate speech. The court found that section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 was unconstitutional insofar as it included the vague term "hurtful" as part of the definition of prohibited hate speech.

References

  1. 1 2 "Canadian Human Rights Act, Version of section 13 from 2002-12-31 to 2014-06-25". laws.justice.gc.ca. 31 December 2002. Retrieved 2021-03-20.
  2. ↑ Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 54(1)(c), as enacted by S.C. 1998, c. 9, s. 28.
  3. ↑ Branch, Legislative Services (2017-03-15). "Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Anti-terrorism Act". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca.
  4. ↑ "Notice Paper, 39-2, No 41 (31 January 2008)". House of Commons of Canada. 31 January 2008. p. 11. Archived from the original on 14 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  5. 1 2 3 Joseph Brean (March 22, 2008). "Scrutinizing the human rights machine". National Post. Archived from the original on April 3, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-22.
  6. ↑ Fekete, Jason (June 7, 2012). "MPs vote to drop some hate-speech sections of Human Rights Act". The Vancouver Sun . Archived from the original on 2012-06-10. Retrieved June 7, 2012.
  7. ↑ "NP - "Jonathan Kay: Good riddance to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act" 7 Jun 2012". Archived from the original on 2013-01-05. Retrieved 2014-02-15.
  8. ↑ "Hate speech no longer part of Canada's Human Rights Act". 27 June 2013.
  9. ↑ "Taking Action to End Online Hate Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights" (PDF). House of commons chambre des communes Canada. Retrieved 2021-09-20.
  10. ↑ "BILL C-36 (First Reading)". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 2021-09-20.
  11. ↑ "Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor - SCC Cases (Lexum)". scc.lexum.org. January 2001.
  12. ↑ Warman v. Lemire, 2009 CHRT 26, para. 295
  13. ↑ "Warman v. Lemire: The Constitutionality of Hate Speech Legislation". TheCourt.ca. 2009-09-22. Retrieved 2020-02-20.
  14. ↑ "Canadian Jewish Congress v. Makow". 2010-05-26. Retrieved 2010-10-28.
  15. ↑ "Court finds Internet hate speech law Section 13 to be constitutionally valid, doesn't violate freedom of expression". National Post. February 2, 2014. Retrieved July 1, 2015.
  16. ↑ The Canadian Press (10 October 2008). "B.C. panel rejects Muslim complaint vs. Maclean's". CTV. Archived from the original on 15 February 2009. Retrieved 23 February 2009.
  17. ↑ Two-tiered thought police, National Post, December 19, 2008.
  18. ↑ Les mécréants by Mario Roy, La Presse, December 18, 2008. (in French)
  19. ↑ "Can Human Rights Go Too Far?". CBC News. March 2008. Archived from the original on January 6, 2009.
  20. ↑ "CAJ welcomes end to Levant human rights complaint". August 8, 2008. Archived from the original on January 24, 2016. Retrieved August 11, 2008.
  21. ↑ Simon Blackburn "Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy" pp 63 characterizes Chomsky as an "American linguist, philosopher and political activist"
  22. ↑ Jaworski, P.M. (December 8, 2008). "Question Period: Noam Chomsky on being censored, CHRC censorship, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and libertarianism". The Shotgun Blog. Western Standard . Retrieved 2009-06-02.
  23. ↑ Speaking Out on Human Rights: Debating Canada's Human Rights System
  24. 1 2 Joseph Brean (June 21, 2008). "Human rights issues open to vigorous debate". National Post. Retrieved 2008-06-22. (available online at ( Archived 2016-04-06 at the Wayback Machine )
  25. ↑ The Controversy Entrepreneurs by Pearl Eliadis, Maisonneuve, August 20, 2009.
  26. ↑ Hate Speech under the Canadian Human Rights Act Archived 2011-07-27 at the Wayback Machine , Canadian Bar Association (CBA), January 2010. pages 10-12.
  27. ↑ Joseph Brean (April 5, 2008). "Rights group defends itself". National Post. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
  28. ↑ "Opinion: How Canada can counter online hate | Montreal Gazette".
  29. 1 2 3 Ottawa urged to scrap hate speech law by Joseph Brean, National Post, November 24, 2008.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.