Local MP Brian Storseth’s bill aimed at eliminating a controversial section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, passed through the House of Commons last week and could be law as early as this fall.
Now in the Senate, the bill would remove a section of the act that targets hate speech. The section covers the transmission of hate speech over the phone, radio or the Internet and has been used against both members of extremist hate groups and the mainstream media.
Storseth said he was pleased to see his bill pass the house. He introduced it last September as a private member’s bill.
“Freedom of speech and expression in our country has always been something that is very important to me as an Albertan,” he said. “This is something that, as the Internet becomes an ever increasing means of communication in our society, is going to be even more critical in the future.”
The section has drawn specific scorn in recent years after complaints came forward against author Mark Steyn and former magazine publisher Ezra Levant.
The bill will repeal the section of the act surrounding hate speech and Storseth said that was only to fix the problem.
“I think it was fundamentally flawed and I think it had great meaning and intention, but I think the legislation itself was fundamentally flawed.”
The criminal code still covers hate speech, but has a higher standard of proof than the Human Right Act and would lead to a hearing in front of a judge, not a human rights tribunal. Storseth said criminal law will still provide an outlet for pursuing hate speech.
“It is important that if we are going to try hate speech in this country, that is a serious crime that is going to have real police officers and real judges presiding over it.”
During committee hearings on the bill the Canadian Bar Association, a former president of the Canadian Jewish Congress and University of Calgary law professor Kathleen Mahoney all spoke in favour of keeping the section.
Mahoney said there was no need for the change.
“The fact of the matter is that the law has worked very well,” she said. “The law has worked, the Supreme Court of Canada has said it was a good law, they have upheld it under rigorous examination in terms of free speech principles.”
Mahoney argued targeting hate speech is not about infringing on people’s rights.
“These aren’t laws meant to prevent you from writing your column in your paper, they are meant to protect people from harm.”
She said while Levant and Steyn’s cases have brought attention to the commission, both men were ultimately found to have done no wrong.
“I don’t see the sense of repealing it, no one has been harmed by it, other than the sensibilities of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, who didn’t even get found to have violated the law.”
The individual cases weren’t a concern for him when he proposed the bill, Storseth said, but rather the underpinnings of the legislation.
“At the end of the day you don’t change legislation or put legislation forward in a private member’s bill because of one case,” he said. “This is about the principle and the place that freedom of expression has in our country.”
