Foundation News
Human rights commissions still needed
By Janet Keeping
Two recent articles that criticized homosexuals and Muslims have re-ignited the debate over whether human rights commissions should be used to crack down on hateful views -- or whether they should be disbanded altogether.
Last fall, a human rights panel decided that a letter by Stephen Boisson published in the Red Deer Advocate violated provincial law because it was "likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt."
More recently, the Canadian Islamic Congress filed human rights complaints against an article by conservative commentator Mark Steyn in Maclean's about the consequences of Muslim immigrants' high birth rates (The Future Belongs to Islam), saying it "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt."
As much as I detest the views expressed, on balance, I think it is wrong to use human right statutes against views that ridicule, offend or are hateful. Why? Because we need to maximize open debate.
The best way to counter Boisson's arguments is to speak out against verbal attacks on homosexuals, showing that we support their equal right to dignity.
And when I read Steyn's article in Maclean's, I am even more certain of this view. I wish the author had expressed his views on Muslim immigration in a more measured way and I do not agree with his opinions or approach. But he raises substantial public policy issues and should not be silenced by the law.
"Free speech," as philosopher Ronald Dworkin says, "is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his (or her) convictions about what those laws and policies should be."
It may be a good thing that we have criminal laws against more serious forms of harmful speech, such as "wilful promotion of hatred." But if nasty talk doesn't meet the stringent Criminal Code standard, perhaps we ought to accept that the democratic antidote is criticism, debate and protest.
However, critics are overreacting when they call for the demise of human rights commissions.
Commentator Rebecca Walberg (Shut Down the Human Rights Commissions, Dec. 19), argued in the Calgary Herald that the commissions no longer are necessary because discrimination no longer exists.
She contends the problem has been solved and human rights commissions are accepting complaints about nasty talk as a way of giving themselves a new mandate. Further, she argues that, in so doing, the commissions restrict freedom of speech in dangerous ways and should be disbanded.
But readers should beware of such confused arguments. Unfortunately, discrimination, especially against visible minorities, aboriginal people and the disabled, continues.
Yes, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has lessened discrimination by government, but the charter does not apply to discrimination by one private citizen or company against another. If I refuse you a job because you are aboriginal or a person of colour or because you wear a head scarf, the charter is of no use at all.
Only human rights agencies offer legal remedies to such problems. If such commissions are disbanded, there's no remedy.
Contrary to popular impression, cases that concern hateful or offensive speech do not constitute a major proportion of complaints to human rights commissions. For example, in 2006-07, one per cent of new cases in Alberta were of this type. More than eight in 10 new cases concerned discrimination in employment.
Across Canada, the numbers are very similar. Almost none deal with hateful speech and the majority -- for most human rights commissions, the vast majority -- involve complaints of discrimination in employment.
In fact, the part of Alberta human rights law which is used to penalize offensive speech was only added in 1996. If this aspect of the law, which also appears in the British Columbia and federal human rights statutes, is truly misguided as its critics assert, then it should be removed. And the sooner the better.
But this says nothing about the important role a human rights commission -- empowered by appropriate law, staffed by competent people and supported by a government which understands the importance of human rights -- can play.
We may not have such commissions in Canada today, but there is no reason why we can't have them and there is no doubt we need them.
Human rights commissions still needed
The Calgary Herald
January 23, 2008
By Janet Keeping
Controversy is swirling around complaints to human rights commissions about hateful publications. For example, last fall a human rights panel decided that a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate violated provincial law because it was "likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt."
And the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has filed human rights complaints against an article in Maclean's about the consequences of Muslim immigrants' high birth rates (The Future Belongs to Islam), saying it "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt."
Some critics of human rights decisions and complaints, such as these, are calling for the demise of human rights commissions.
One commentator (Rebecca Walberg, Shut Down the Human Rights Commissions, Calgary Herald, Dec. 19), argues this: discrimination no longer exists; the problem has been solved; to give themselves a new mandate, human rights commissions are accepting complaints about nasty talk; in so doing, they restrict freedom of speech in dangerous ways and should be disbanded.
But readers -- like buyers -- should beware. There is much that is wrong or confused here.
First, discrimination, especially against visible minorities, aboriginal people and the disabled, continues unfortunately apace. Yes, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has lessened discrimination by government, but the charter does not apply to discrimination by one private citizen or company against another. If I refuse you a job because you are aboriginal or a person of colour or wear a head scarf, the charter is of no use at all. Only human rights agencies (commissions or tribunals) offer legal remedies to such problems. If there's no commission in Alberta, there's no remedy.
Second, the impression is created that cases concerning hateful or offensive speech constitute a major proportion of complaints to human rights commissions. But this is wrong. In 2006-07, one per cent of new cases in Alberta were of this type. As usual, the vast majority (82 per cent) concerned discrimination in employment.
In fact, the part of Alberta human rights law which is used to penalize offensive speech was only added in 1996. If this aspect of the law is truly misguided, as critics say (more about this below), then it should be removed from the act.
But this says nothing about the important role a human rights commission -- empowered by appropriate law, staffed by competent people and supported by a government which understands the importance of human rights -- can play. We may not have such a commission in Alberta today, but there is no reason why we can't have one and -- back to the first point -- there is no doubt that we need one.
So what about the use of human rights statutes to go after the expression of views that ridicule, offend or are hateful? There is some room, I think, for reasonable people to disagree on this and the question merits careful analysis and debate. But on balance, I think it is wrong to use human right statutes against such speech. Why? Because we need to maximize open debate and it is way too easy to conclude that speech offends or exposes to hatred.
I loathe what Stephen Boissoin -- the author of the letter to the Red Deer Advocate -- wrote, but the better remedy is to speak out at every opportunity against verbal attacks on homosexuals, showing that we support their equal right to dignity.
And when I read the Maclean's article, against which the CIC has filed complaints, I am even more certain of this view. I wish author Mark Steyn had expressed his views on Muslim immigration in a more measured way and I do not agree with his opinions or approach. But he raises substantial public policy issues and should not be silenced by the law.
"Free speech is," as philosopher Ronald Dworkin says, "a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his (or her) convictions about what those laws and policies should be."
It may be a good thing that we have criminal laws against more serious forms of harmful speech, such as "wilful promotion of hatred." But if nasty talk doesn't meet the stringent Criminal Code standard, perhaps we ought to accept that the democratic antidote is criticism, debate, protest and the like.
In a democracy, not every problem can or should have a legal solution. Heavy-handed use of the law can make matters worse, not better.
Janet Keeping is president of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, which is hosting a panel discussion Thursday evening on Offensive Speech: What's Legal? What's Ethical?
Speakers are Alan Borovoy (Canadian Civil Liberties Association), Stephen Ward (journalism ethics, UBC) and Micheal Vonn (B.C. Civil Liberties Association). The public is invited to this free event, which starts at 5:30 p.m., but should call 244-6666 to register, as seating is limited.
Print
Email