It’s been denounced by left and right on talk radio, in newspapers and been savagely attacked in the blogosphere. The Conservative Party of Canada has passed a policy resolution calling for the government they currently lead, to do away with it. A Liberal MP has tabled and defended a motion to strip it out. Still the infamous section 13.1 of Canada’s Human Rights Act lives on.
For greater clarity, as lawyers say, here is the section in question:
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.
The emphasis is mine, put in to highlight the section that sees groups from across the political spectrum calling for repeal or reform. It simply goes against Canada’s long standing legal traditions, never mind the Charter, to say that someone is in breach of an Act of Parliament because something they wrote is likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt. As has often been pointed out, no actual hatred or contempt need occur, just the possibility.
Last fall there were hearings by the House of Commons Justice Committee to review the section with a mind to revise or repeal. This week Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch told me that the committee is no longer reviewing that matter and no other body in the federal government is taking it up. There is “an inquiry” in the Senate but one Senator tells me that amounts to nothing more than speeches and no matter how good the speeches are, nothing will come of it.
The Commission itself recommended doing away with their ability to impose fines and return to a remedial rather than punitive system of “regulating hate on the internet.” Without any MPs pushing this issue, it will not move forward. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson may have voted in favour of his party’s recommendation to do away with section 13 but he has never acted on this file even though it falls under his department. Currently he is too busy reintroducing bills aimed at getting tough on crime and shows no interest in the Human Rights Commission and its ability to trample Charter rights.
Don’t expect Commissioner Lynch to bring about change to way the system works, at least not in anyway that protects and respects the fundamental freedoms Canadians cherish such as free expression. I use free expression on purpose just so that I don’t confuse CHRC staff who think free speech is an American concept without value but free expression is truly Canadian. Asking Ms. Lynch this week about changing well documented problem behaviours in the CHRC, she tried to tell me that they are rated as one of the best places to work by civil servants and that they are continually improving.
“We are proud of how we accomplish our work,” says Lynch. I just wish the rest of us could say the same.
Read more: Canadian's ancient rights: gun ownership and a vote on taxes
Brian Lilley is the Ottawa Bureau Chief for radio stations Newstalk 1010 in Toronto and CJAD 800 in Montreal. Follow Brian on Twitter to get the latest as it happens.
Get more from Examiner.com's Canadian Politics Examiner
Comments
I can't remember...which group was it that you had lined up in your sights to unleash a torrent of hate propaganda against, Mr. Lilley? Was it the gays or the Muslims? Or was it gay Muslims?
I see an anti-free speecher showed up, hum are ya at work at the CHRC Curious?
We the people will eventually destroy Section 13, we can't count on the politicians because they just don't care about our chartered rights they are to busy pandering to the self same special interst groups that the CHRC caters to.
The gutless bastards are going to leave it to the supreme court to trim back HRC wich hunting with clearly defined parameters (maybe).
I think the Tory symbol should be changed to the white feather. If they won't stand up against the abuse of charter rights by empire building commissions, there is little else left for them to defend, except their bloated pay checks.
So you don't like the Charter? Is that what you are saying Curious Canadian? What other fundamental rights and freedoms are you willing to give up?
I was wondering if "Parliamentary Privilege" is now lost due to this section? Hate speech from MPs in the H of C on TV who think they are immune, but are in fact subject to this might make the point....
You can't trust any of the SOB's. Its our own fault for allowing Parliament M P's with its bureaucrats. To become Entitled elitist scavengers. Living perpetually on Canadian workers tax dollars while persecuting them. Multicultural groups don't have to worry.
We gave them a Kings wages, with the an host of gold pensions, free vehicles. Travel without limit. Free transport & a 100 other goodies.
Who else but those with no morality or character would pant after gold mine? Carpetbaggers, opportunists, power junkies. Canada lost its freedom statute , bylaw & believing the Marxist lie.
Than latter millions by influencing Parliament as Jaffer has so effectively shown.
Yet I'm a Conservative. That knows their is no such party left. The CPC have become overrun by Red Tories.
Reform died a long time ago with these guys.
So now your left to vote to see Canada die slowly under the
Tories, or a quick death under the Liberals. Suicide under Laytons drones.
Really, what else is there to say? Canada is an authoritarian state; it has been for a long time. jennifer lynch and her gang of vaginas explicitly targets people who say things that MIGHT subject other parties to "hatred and contempt" - which, in theory, means that feminists in english departments across the land who rail against men should be careful what they say (though its manifest that only some groups are targeted by the HRCs). Stop and let this sink in for a moment: you don't have to threaten anyone; you don't have to slander/libel anyone; in canada, all that has to happen is that you raise a criticism of another party and, as long as that other party "believes" such criticism subjects him/her/it to "contempt," you are looking at an HRC destroying your life. Vigorous debate is dead in canada and the nation cannot seriously be considered a nation of ideas. No wonder the best and brightest flee to america. In canada, in 2010, you can't even express a contrary opinion.
I hate that section of the Act and I hold anyone who defends it or enforces it in complete contempt.
i will say what i want when i want. if anyone wants to shut me up they will have to kill me. do we have to die in canada for free speech. i will fight back though, so someone other than me will also get hurt.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!