Gadfly conservative author Mark Steyn sparked a divisive debate about press freedom and human rights when Maclean's magazine published an excerpt in 2006 from one of his books under the title The Future Belongs to Islam. The book describes many Muslims as "hot for jihad." It warns that they will become a "successor population" in Europe because of their high birth rate. And it argues "the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be."
This polemic drew complaints from Muslims to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. They said the article subjected them to contempt and hatred. A year and a half later, their complaints are still working their way through the system.
In April, the Ontario commission agreed the article was Islamophobic and perpetuated "prejudice toward Muslims" but decided it had no jurisdiction because the provincial rights code doesn't cover discrimination in the media. The British Columbia tribunal, in contrast, chose to hear the case earlier this month because its broader code does cover the publication of hateful statements. It is now pondering its decision.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is also actively investigating the complaint.
All this gives Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government an incentive to have Parliament take a fresh look at Section 13 of the federal rights act. The section deems it a "discriminatory practice" to communicate "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" via the Internet. Ottawa and B.C. should repeal such sections and stop trying to regulate the media.
Conservative MP Rick Dykstra has asked the Commons justice and human rights committee to review Section 13. And Liberal MP Keith Martin has introduced a private member's motion to have the Commons call for the section's deletion. However these initiatives play out, they reflect growing unease that an unwarranted chill is being cast on free speech, when sufficient safeguards exist elsewhere. Parliament and the provincial legislatures should take note.
Canada's Criminal Code already provides for a two-year jail term for inciting or promoting hatred against identifiable groups. Libel laws can be invoked. And provincial press councils field complaints.
Does society need to cast more of a chill on press freedom in order to combat discrimination? Polemicists such as Steyn are better countered in the marketplace of ideas. Readers who feel ill-served are free to go elsewhere.
Parliament and the legislatures should rethink laws that have the effect of targeting opinions rather than actions.
As Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has argued on these pages, human rights commissions should concern themselves with discriminatory behaviour, not discriminatory opinion. "Generally, the answer to bad speech is good speech," he wrote. Wise words, from a respected rights advocate.
No comments:
Post a Comment