The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50802
The federal Conservatives agreed. At its November 2008 convention, it adopted a resolution to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate and adjudicate s. 13 com- plaints. But a beleaguered Stephen Harper has nudged that resolution to the back burner. When asked by Maclean's in January whether the government planned to amend the act, Harper told editor Ken Whyte, "The government has no plans to do so." He explained: "It is a very tricky issue of public policy because obviously, as we've seen, some of these powers can be abused. But they do exist for valid rea- sons, which is obviously to prevent public airwaves from being used to disseminate hate against vulnerable members of our society." The PM's use of the word "air- waves" was confusing since s. 13 deals only with the telephone and Internet, but nonetheless, his intentions seemed clear. That hasn't stopped Keith Martin, a Liberal MP from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, B.C., from taking up the torch, introduc- ing a pair of motions in November calling for s. 13 to be deleted and for public hear- ings to review the act, the commission, and its tribunal. Martin says he hadn't paid close attention to the Human Rights Commission until he got a call from a constituent. "I was quite appalled at how the act was being used to, in some cases, bludgeon freedom of speech," he says. "The act was going far beyond protecting individuals from hate speech and at times, making almost arbitrary decisions to go after people who said things that were deemed by a small group to be offensive." Sweeping generalizations like that make Warman flush red with aggravation. According to the commission's web site, 70 s. 13 complaints were filed between 2001 and April 2008 and, as of that month, only 13 had been upheld by the tribunal. Eleven of the 13 were filed by Warman, who worked as a human rights officer and legal counsel for the commission from 2002 to 2004. Warman says he filed complaints before he started working for the commission, during, and after he left, but adds he was not involved with the complaint process or the investigations. His detractors insist otherwise and accuse him of abusing his power and connections to grind axes. According to one insider, Warman's preoccupation with s. 13 makes some commission members uncomfortable. His response is simple: the legislation is there so why not use it? "If you know there are people calling for the genocide of your neighbour, you have a fundamental moral and ethical duty to do whatever you can to stop it," he says. "I think it would be a failing to my profession as a lawyer not to." Peruse the tribunal's recent decisions and it's hard to find any of the "arbitrary" cases Martin refers to. In each decision, the tribunal cites examples of online cultural conspiracies (by "Niggers," "Injuns," "Chinks," etc.), vile depictions of First Nations, gays, Hindus, blacks, Muslims, Jews, etc., and threats to harm members of those "sub-human" groups. Postings to a Canadian Nazi Party web site were the subject of a 2007 complaint by Warman against Bobby Wilkinson. The tribunal's decision cited repeated calls to kill "niggers, Jews, and faggots," including this post: "The only faith I have left in this country is that the KKK and White Power grops [sic] all across the nation will fix this terrible mess with genocide." It is nasty, threatening content, says Doug Christie, but just words in the end, emitting from the fringes of society. "You're never going to have free speech issues in regard to popular people because no one's ever going to shut them up," he says. "Controversy is where free speech becomes an issue. And you're not going to have controversy if what the person says is popular. Free speech is for the unpopular. It's never free speech until it is unpopular — it's just accepted speech." In the self-diagnosing, porn-populated, face-space-wiki-tube universe we call the Internet, "accepted speech" seems to be getting freer and more controversial all the time. People say just about anything online including half-truths and outright lies. And that's just what we can find with ease. Dig further. Register in Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi chat rooms, and you'll find conversations that are more than just offensive — they're disturbing. Enforcing Human Rights in Ontario Mary Cornish, Fay Faraday and Jo-Anne Pickel Kim Bernhardt, B.A. (Hons.) LL.B. LL.M, Specializing in equality rights This is the first book to outline how the new human rights system works, written by lawyers renown for their experience in the area. Written in a practical how-to format, it provides: • the history of the reform • the wide-ranging changes from the old to the new system – including the changed roles of the Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Tribunal and the new Human Rights Legal Service Centre • practical information and principled analysis to help those representing complainants, respondents, intervenors and the Commission Practical tools include: copies of the legislation, flow charts covering the new tribunal rules and procedures, a list of the Commissions guidelines, information on legal supports… and more Hardbound • Approx. 320 pp • March 2009 • Approx. $84 P/C 0301010000 • ISBN 978-0-088804-485-3 canadalawbook.ca MERGING TRADITION WITH TECHNOLOGY For a 30-day, no-risk evaluation call: 1.800.263.2037 Canada Law Book is a Division of The Cartwright Group Ltd Prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. CL0309 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com M ARCH 2009 33 Cornish_enforcing Human Rights (CL 1-3sq).indd 1 2/12/09 10:17:20 AM "Practitioners will welcome this much-needed and comprehensive guide to the human rights system in Ontario. This book is a strong testament to the authors' expertise and long-standing commitment to ensuring the protection and advancement of human rights in this province."