September 16, 2008 | In Politics, Law |
The totalitarian tactics of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions have been on the media’s radar for a while now, and have even caught the attention of some brave politicians. But this crucial issue, which continues to threaten freedom of speech in Canada has yet to become a visible issue this election season.
That’s why its comforting to see that Marc Lemire’s Constitutional challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is finally being taken seriously (or so it would seem) by Human Rights Tribunal adjudicator, Athanasios Hadjis, who sharply questioned CHRC lawyer, Margot Blight, yesterday, about Section 13’s application to the internet, and whether webmasters should be held accountable for “hateful” and “contemptuous” comments by others on their websites.
Today it was free speech lawyer, Doug Christie’s, turn to attack the legitimacy of Canada’s most odious hate speech law on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League. He argued that when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the John Ross Taylor case (a landmark 1990 precedent allowing for the “reasonable limitation” of freedom of expression), it did not anticipate the internet as it exists today, where multiple viewpoints can be expressed and debated.
Christie also asserted that honest debate of historical events (such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Protestant Reformation) and more recent events (including the Air India bombing and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) could potentially be chilled by Section 13. “True belief is intolerant and conflict is inevitable where people believe different things,” he said.
Closing arguments in the Lemire case will be wrapped up tomorrow, after almost five years of litigation. We can only hope that Lemire will win this battle to strike Section 13 from the law books, and all the time and effort that has gone into this case will result in greater free speech rights for Canadians.
