Canada's Human Rights Commission has rejected suggestions that it stop investigating hate messages on the Internet, saying the issue shouldn't be left solely to the Criminal Code.
In a report to Parliament obtained by The Globe and Mail, the commission argues that both the criminal code and the Canadian Human Rights Act should be used to deal with the promotion of hate. The issue has become a lightning rod, with critics, and some MPs and media outlets arguing that the commission's role in looking into hate complaints on the Internet should be ended because it threatens the right to free speech.
In its report, the commission also recommends that people who are the subject of frivolous complaints be awarded costs, and that the commission should leave the imposing of fines to the criminal courts.
“Hate on the Internet is part of a broader pattern of hatred, prejudice and discrimination in Canada,” the report says. “While Canada is one of the most tolerant of nations, discrimination continues to exist.”
The human rights commission screens complaints and determines whether they should be referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. After a hearing, a tribunal can order the Internet activities stopped, order compensation, or impose penalties of up to $10,000.
The commission and the tribunal were created to provide an alternative to the courts for resolution of human rights complaints.
“The commission has concluded that the dual approach, although certainly not perfect, has worked well and can continue to do so in the future.”
The criminal law allows authorities to deal with situations in which Internet users post content that deserves punishment through fines or incarceration. The human rights act allows authorities to deal with situations in which the offender's intent may not be as clear, but still warrants the message's removal.
The issue gained prominence after a story from Maclean's magazine posted on the Internet became the subject of a complaint. The CHRC dismissed the complaint, which was brought by Canadian Islamic Congress.
“Some have argued that exposing mainstream media organizations to possible commission complaints is inconsistent with Canada's commitment to freedom of the press that is expressly protected in ... the [Charter of Rights and Freedoms,]” the report says.
“However ... freedom of the press is not an absolute value and cannot be exercised in isolation from other rights and freedoms.”
But while the commission defended its right to continue to hear such issues, it suggested ways to reduce frivolous complaints.
For example, it recommends amending the human rights act so that costs can be awarded to respondents if the complaining party has abused the process. Moreover, the commission says that the system should be changed to allow early dismissal of complaints to prevent a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression. Finally, the commission suggests eliminating provisions that allow fines.
The commission report rejects the main recommendation of Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor, who suggested in a study that he conducted for the commission that the section of the act dealing with hate speech be removed.
Mr. Moon recommended that hate speech should be dealt with under the Criminal Code, and that the prohibition should be narrowed to an expression that “advocates, justifies or threatens violence.”
Such a definition raises the question of whether individuals like former Alberta teacher James Keegstra, who taught his students that there was a world-wide Jewish conspiracy, would have been convicted, the commission report says.
