At most, 30,000 Canadians might be targeted.
It’s a debate that’s been joined in Canada, off and on, for decades: towhat extent, if any, should limits be imposed on free speech to protectminorities from vilification?
At the law offices of Cassels Brock & Blackwell, two proponentsof laws that would restrict free expression clashed with a longstandingsupporter of unfettered speech in a Sept. 25 lunchtime event sponsoredby the Speakers Action Group and the Canadian Jewish Civil RightsAssociation.
Representatives of B’nai Brith Canada and the Friends of the SimonWiesenthal Center (FSWC) pushed for retention of the anti-hate speechprovisions of Canada’s Human Rights Act and similar provinciallegislation, while Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian CivilLiberties Association, said the law ought to be abandoned.
At the federal level, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Acttargets statements that are likely to expose people to hatred orcontempt, based on prohibited grounds of discrimination, such as theirreligion.
“The first problem is, what the hell does hatred mean?” Borovoyasked. “Free speech is most important if it creates strong disapproval.Where does strong disapproval end and hatred begin?”
The legislation does not provide for the defence of truth, for lackof intent, or reasonableness of the statement, Borovoy said, suggestingthat historian Daniel Goldhagen’s argument that many Germans subscribedto Hitler’s murderous anti-Semitism and were “willing executioners”could lead to hatred against Germans.
And if someone believes Serbs supported Slobodan Milosevic’satrocities against Kosovo and were willing executioners, would that notexpose Serbs to hatred or contempt? And, Borovoy asked, should thatview be censored?