Must Reads

Report Recommends Repealing Hate Speech Provision

The National Post reports that an independent report by Professor Richard Moon has recommended that the controversial hate speech provision in the Human Rights Act be repealed.  The report was commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

8 Comments

  1. is hate or free speech preferred?
    This law has always confused me. Canada and the U.S. share a border and so much media flows in a borderless way, that often we are subjected to America’s free speech ways, which can at times constitute hate speech within our borders. Which way is best? I’m undecided. Part of me likes the way Canada takes a stand against hate speech. No other countries that I am aware of, are taking such a stand. I’m all for free speech and always have been, but I find hate speech ugly, and like to see people take a stand against it.

  2. Blocking Websites
    How much more censorship infrastructure are we prepared to authorize, fund and build. No one likes hatespeech, but I think most dislike censorship more. Whack the bad guys with the criminal code, not the rest of us at our ISPs.

  3. Ongoing battle
    It’s interesting that this is getting coverage in the Post now.
    During the election, they published an editorial which suggested that one of the positions Harper needed to take to win the election was to support the removal of Section 13 from the Human Rights Act.
    Isn’t it amazing that a case against Maclean’s could get such a snow ball rolling?
    Do we still need anti-hate speech legislation? Absolutely. Regardless of how much of our information comes from international sources, protection from hate speech at home remains an important issue.

    Considering the report that was just released regarding racism in Toronto, it surprises (and disappoints) me that some people feel that Section 13 is useless.

  4. Problem with a double edged sword…
    Unfortunately, we probably do need this law repealed.

    What was destined to protect is ending up stifling controversial topics.

  5. Vincent Clement says:

    Katie Raso: Why do we need protection from hate speech? Why do we need anti-hate speech legislation? You give no reasons for limiting free speech in such a draconian way.

    If some idiot wants to make a fool of himself, let him. The beauty of free speech is that I have the opportunity to ignore him, argue against him, and/or speak to others hoping to convince them the idiot is not worth their time and attention.

    Gregg: It is never unfortunate when free speech wins.

  6. more free speech
    While it’s easy to say that no one should be subjected to hate speech, I don’t think it’s possible for laws and law enforcement to protect people from it. Personally, I think the solution is more free speech, not less. If someone says something hateful, particularly on the internet, don’t sensor it, don’t pretend those feelings don’t exist, let the discussion take place. If it’s wrong, let others in the community stand up and say so.

  7. Marnie Tunay says:

    Fakirs Canada
    Jonathan Kay offered up the most penetrating analysis I have seen of Richard Moon’s report:
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/25/jonathan-kay-three-more-observations-on-richard-moon-s-chrc-report.aspx
    Marnie Tunay
    Fakirs Canada
    http://fakirscanada.googlepages.com/

  8. Marnie Tunay says:

    Fakirs Canada
    I see that I wasn’t able to post the URL for Jonathan’s commentary. You can find it by going to National Post Full Comment November 25, Jonathan Kay on Censorship, Press Councils and hate speech…
    Marnie Tunay
    Fakirs Canada