Animal Farm thrives north of the border

On its way to the USA

[Reprinted from Issues & Views November 26, 2001]

One wonders if Canada's "Human Rights Act" was actually designed to make a mockery of such documents. There could not be a more bizarre set of laws, which gives unprecedented power to particular "protected" social groups. Members of these groups may enter complaints against expressions by others that they deem "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

For example, the writer who advocates an end to mass, uncontrolled immigration into Canada and mentions particular incoming groups (i.e., Asians), and distributes his views in publications or online, could be prosecuted under Section 12 ("Publication of Discriminatory Notices") and/or Section 13 ("Hate Messages"). The fact that the writer's intention is to alert the public to what he believes to be a real problem will not matter, since intention counts for nothing. Nor does truth.

Punishment under the statutes of the Human Rights Act by no means is limited to immigration matters. In a legal challenge to these laws, a Canadian "Human Rights Tribunal" officially ruled in 1998 that "Truth is not a defense." That ruling was delivered in the Ernst Zündel case, where the defendant's writings put forth a revised historical interpretation of what has come to be the only acceptable version of the European "Holocaust." His version of history thereby made Zündel an "inciter of racism." The ruling claims that, "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role." The judges then go on to talk about subjective, rather than objective ways of judging a legal case:

"It is the social context in which the message is delivered. . . . it is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient. The objective truth of the statement is ultimately of no consequence if the subjective interpretation . . . is one which arouses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions. . . ."

And on, in this vein, it continues. If one stumbled across this "legal" ruling, one would more likely believe it to be an emanation from a committee of Oprah's women, concocted at one of their Book Club teas. Is this Animal Farm, one wonders, or is it Kafka's world?

Today, in Canada, a new proposed law, Bill C-36, another "anti-terrorism" bill, would give a judge the power to order the deletion of any material from the Internet that he deems to be hate propaganda. First, the material gets deleted, then the author of the material is called to a hearing, where he must defend the content of his writings. If the judge rules against the author, the material cannot be restored to the website. If the material is ruled not to be "hate propaganda," it might be restored only after the normal time for final appeal has expired. This could be months or years. So, in effect, writings are censored whether or not the author is found guilty.

A leading voice for free speech, Paul Fromm, of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, says, "The judge can order the permanent removal of offensive opinion on mere probability that it constitutes 'hate' against privileged groups, not that it does so 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Timely material can be ordered gagged and might not be restored to a website until many months or years later, after all appeals have been exhausted. Ironically, this is not a war on terrorism, but a war on free speech."

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views