WILDROSE MOTION WOULD FULFILL BROKEN PC PROMISE ON CENSORSHIP EDMONTON, AB (March 15, 2014): The PC government should support Motion 502, which would repeal problematic speech laws contained in the Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA), since Premier Alison Redford promised to enact similar reforms in 2011, Wildrose Justice Critic Shayne Saskiw said today. Saskiw ’s motion will be debated in the Legislature on Monday. As recently as 2011, Redford promised to make changes to the AHRA. [ http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=cefa0255-25fe-4aec-a250-6ca22f6f0106 ]She specifically stated "freedom of expression must be shielded and Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act should be repealed.” In 2011, Justice Minister [ http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Human+Rights+potential+Tory+headache/7497087/story.html ]Jonathan Denis also supported repealing this contentious section of the AHRA, but has also done nothing to see this through. In 2012, the federal government voted to repeal a similar section in the Canadian Human Rights Act, saying it violated Canadians ’ right to free speech, which is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Saskiw said the problematic act has exposed countless Albertans to long and costly Human Rights Tribunals, which regularly spiral into subjective witch-hunts that would never hold-up in a court of law. He said the Premier can deliver on her 2011 promise by supporting Motion 502 now. "Wildrose believes in free speech without the state prosecuting Albertans for their beliefs,” Saskiw said. "There is a limit on speech, however, which has been in the Criminal Code of Canada since 1970.” Saskiw said investigations done by the Alberta Human Rights Commission often rob the accused of his or her basic legal rights. "The system is flawed,” Saskiw said. "Albertans are being burdened with the full cost of legal representation and lengthy legal processes so they can face allegations that would never hold up in court. If allegations are serious enough, the RCMP should investigate, charges should be laid under the Criminal Code, and the punishment levied by the courts should be severe.” Saskiw is calling on members of Redford ’s PC government to support his motion, and help fulfill the promise she herself made in 2011. He said the fear of being brought before the Human Rights Tribunal over baseless allegations, which would not withstand the scrutiny of a court of law, has put a chilling caveat on all Albertans ’ fundamental right to free speech.
Alberta Human Rights Act Section 3 Discrimination re: publications, notices 3 (1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to (a) the display of a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation displayed to identify facilities customarily used by one gender, (b) the display or publication by or on behalf of an organization that is composed exclusively or primarily of persons having the same political or religious beliefs, ancestry or place of origin, and is not operated for private profit, of a statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating a purpose or membership qualification of the organization, or (c) the display or publication of a form of application or an advertisement that may be used, circulated or published pursuant to section 8(2) if the statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation is not derogatory, offensive or otherwise improper. Revised: March 10, 2010
