More Good News on the "Hate Speech" Front

You might recall that I was very pleased when the move was made to remove sec. 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act last year.

Well, I was even more pleased when I learned today that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has now weighed in on the wording of a similar provision in Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code.

The facts of the case are notorious. After William Whatcott distributed flyers condemning homosexuality using very strong language, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal found that that his actions breached sec. 14(1)(b) of the Code, which prohibits the publication of printed matter that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons” because of sexual orientation.

Although the SCC upheld part of that provision as constitutional and not a violation of Whatcott's freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it found that the prohibition against ridicule, belittlement or affronts to dignity did not meet constitutional muster.

The Court held that those words are not synonymous with hatred, which was defined as “whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination”. Thus, the Court made clear that it is unconstitutional to prohibit speech that is something less than detestation and vilification.

Finally, the SCC held that although freedom of religion (Whatcott argued that his flyers were motivated by his sincere religious beliefs) and religious speech have broad protection like the freedom of expression, at the same time, that speech cannot expose vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification, even if it is sincerely-held.

Although it will fall to the politicians to ultimately (hopefully) remove remaining "hate speech" provisions from Canadian human rights legislation, the SCC decision at least clarifies that

• the test of hatred must be applied objectively (i.e., the reasonable person aware of the relevant context and circumstances), not based on the subjective views of the publisher or the victim; and
• “hatred” involves two concepts—detestation and vilification, which enforce the legislative objectives of anti-discrimination laws.  

I guess all we can do now is await the political process. Bill C-304, which would repeal the hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act (and which provision the Federal Court found largely constitutional in October, 2012),  has passed the House of Commons and is currently being debated in the Senate.

In Alberta, Premier Redford promised during her leadership campaign to repeal the equivalent Alberta provision.

Any other Province care to step forward and be heard?

~  ~  ~  ~

By the by, writing this post got me to thinking about our good friend (term used loosely), Rev. Stephen Boissoin, whose case (last we checked) was winding its way through the courts.

I am pleased to say that the good Reverend (again, using the term loosely) was successful, both in Alberta's Court of Queen Bench and the Court of Appeal, where the Court held that “matters of morality, including the perceived morality of certain types of sexual behavior, are topics for discussion in the public forum,” and “freedom of speech does not just protect polite speech.”

In the words of Jonathan Kay, "Just so".

Knee Meet Jerk

A knee jerk reaction is defined as:

an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive; - in persons with strong feelings on a topic, it may be very predictable.

Synonyms (or perhaps more accurately, symptoms) include:

pavlovian response, absence of thought, automatic reaction,gut reaction, involuntary impulse

So what do you think? Generally speaking ... a good or bad thing?

Now tell me what you think of this.

A 17-year-old high school student has been suspended (and might face expulsion) for writing a dark poem that mentioned the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Her "crime" was, perhaps, one line in the poem; namely a statement that she understood what drove Adam Lanza to do what he did.

But since I'm a big fan of context, let's see how the poem actually read.

They wanna hold me back.
I run, but they still attack.
My innocence, I won't get back.
I use to smile.
They took my kindness for weakness.
The silence the world will never get.
I understand the killings in Connecticut.
I know why he pulled the trigger.
The government is a shame.
Society never wants to take the blame.
Society puts these thoughts in our head.
Misery loves company.

Her poem actually reminds me of something I read in a high school English class. An assigned reading. I can't quite recall now whether it was meant to be a suicide note or something written and handed in by the young man as part of a class assignment, shortly before he hung himself but I believe the latter.

At any rate, that poem has stuck with me my whole life. Not the exact words, of course, but the ideas, the pictures and thoughts remain bright in my mind.

Written in the the third person, the poem told the story of a little boy who started school so full of energy, curiosity and a desire to learn. So full of life. It goes on to tell what the school experience was like from his perspective and although my memory falters in some places, the ending remains crystal clear. Essentially, from his perspective, school had sucked all the colour out of life (starting with things as simple as being repeatedly told to "colour within the lines" in the primary grades), emphasizing demanding conformity in writing, dress and actions. It the end, it sucked the very life out of him.

That was assigned reading in a high school English class and despite the subject matter, it was a very good poem. Both from the perspective of how it was written and because it accomplished what I believe literature, at its best, is meant to accomplish: it made you stop and think. To this day, that little boy still comes back to haunt me.

Now, you might quite rightly point out that poem was assigned in a different time - a time when "school shootings" were unheard of, at any level. In a more innocent time, a time when parents felt safe sending their children to school. When horrors such as Sandy Hook were unimaginable, even in the movies. So it was.

But one of my immediate reactions when I first read that poem (which has stuck with me to this day and makes me think that it was something the young man handed in at school before he took his own life) was to wonder why ... why no one had paid attention to what he had to say, why no one could hear his scream for help, why he was simply given a grade and handed the poem back.

Much like reading the article about Courtni Webb and her poem makes me wonder why.

Why, if the school took this matter so seriously, did they simply suspend her? Did anyone sit down and actually talk to her before this decision was made? Was the first question that crossed administration's mind really "Should we suspend her"? Really? Seriously?

Did it occur to anyone to actually express some concern about the girl, herself? If the poem is to be interpreted as the school so obviously has, shouldn't there have some concern for the state of her mental health? Did we learn nothing from Sandy Hook? Other than that lesson pounded into granite for so many years? Cover. Your. Ass.

But you know what?

I really doubt whether anyone talked too much to Courtni about what she may or may have been thinking when she wrote this poem. But realizing that I am only basing this on the short interview I've watched where Courtni explained the poem, how about if you tell me what you think.



Sociopathic killer? Potential mass murderer? Possibly, I suppose. We are all well aware that we live in a world where anything, indeed, is possible.

Or, perhaps, merely (an apparently bright) high school student using her writing to work through her feelings?

I didn't hear a threat of violence in her words. Which has to make me wonder if the blunt mechanism of suspension was not used because she supposedly somehow violated a zero-tolerance policy or because of a perceived threat of violence, as alleged but simply to "punish" the young woman for her lack of good taste in writing such things so soon after all those little children were so senselessly murdered.

Either way, whether Courtni was actually contemplating violence or simply writing a poem, threatening and intending to threaten no one, if that poem caused concern for those who knew her, the first priority should have been (and should continue to be) her mental health.

Knee. Meet. Jerk.

"Twits" Expanding Definition of Online Hate Crime?

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, I wrote about the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal Guide for Bloggers, which attempts to help bloggers figure out and stay clear of some of the legal liability issues potentially involved in, well, blogging.

Now, as if there weren't enough to think about, today I came across this. 

I can't say it's really surprising - I mean if you're brainless enough to post something stupid on Facebook, Twitter or wherever, you probably deserve what you get. 

Anyone who hasn't yet figured out that police, reporters and future (and even current) employers will check up on what they're on to line ... well, let's just say they're not the brightest crayon in the box.

So, let's just hope all the twits tweeters out there remember that, too.

Although I must say that getting fired for simply stating what many might consider the obvious does seem a bit much.

Goddard landed in hot water last week after retweeting a comment by Twitter user @Uptownhockey, an account for Burlington, Ont.-based Uptown Sports Management, which stated: "Very sad to read Sean Avery’s misguided support of same-gender ‘marriage.’ Legal or not, it will always be wrong."

In his own tweet, Goddard wrote: "I completely and whole-heartedly support (Uptown’s) Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage."

Let's hope they have a lot more than that backing them up when they try to defend a wrongful dismissal suit. Free speech anybody?

But if you thought that was bad, you might just want to sit down for this one.

Are the federal Conservatives trying to kill use of the hyperlink in Canada?

As ludicrous as that sounds, pending legislation in Ottawa seeks to amend the Criminal Code in a way that would make people who hyperlink to other websites potentially guilty of a hate crime if those linked sites wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group.

The wording in question in Bill C-51 is as follows:

"Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example.

The changes are touted by government as necessary to "modernize the Criminal Code in light of new technologies as well as to arm police with stronger powers to investigate computer-based crimes.

Yup, as crazy as it sounds, it appears that our esteemed Conservative government is seriously considering amending the Criminal Code so as to potentially make a blogger guilty of a "hate crime" for linking to a website that contains "hate material".

Now, I'm all for updating all manner of laws to deal with this brave new world we find ourselves in (including the rules of parenting!) but does anyone think this might be going just a little too far?

As pointed out by Mr. Schneidereit, what if the blogger didn't know the website she linked to contained such material? What if the material was posted to the second site after the link was established? What if the site linked to wasn't "hateful" but it (either now or later) linked to a site that was?  What if we've all gone down the rabbit hole?

And just as an aside, not that I am any fan of our current government, but doesn't "conservative" generally mean "less" government, not "more"?

 I mean I could see the federal NDPers trying something like this and giving all us "left leaners" a bad name. 

But the Conservatives?  Really?

Perhaps it's time we all put the mouse down and stepped away from the computer.