The first debate on local MP Brian Storseth’s bill on Nov. 22 in the House of Commons to amend the Human Rights Act should give us pause for reflection. The bill would repeal the hate speech section of the act, which has been the focus of several controversial tribunals.
Storseth has garnered the support of numerous religious and secular organizations, including the Catholic Civil Rights League, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Association of Journalists and the Muslim Canadian Congress. Even the man hired to review section 13 by the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended its repeal. Somehow, despite the overwhelming opposition to it, the debate brought section 13’s last defenders out of the woodwork. These defenders claim the standards of prosecution in the Criminal Code are too high, that is, that someone actually has to be guilty of a crime to face punishment. Instead, they favour the quasi-judicial commissions that fabricate the myth that the government should protect citizens from hurt feelings and offensive language.
A key reason to repeal section 13 is the vague wording. Unlike the Criminal Code, someone who has “likely” to have exposed a person to hatred or contempt is guilty. The section is better suited for clown court than a Canadian court modeled on the British tradition. Under the Human Rights Act, the burden of proof and the right to face your accuser, longstanding tenants of natural law, have been disposed of.
The debate in the House of Commons should give us pause because its tone reflects a divided country. Critics of Storseth’s bill applaud the section that empowers bureaucrats with undeserved power and has been used to prosecute only Christians for using their right to free speech. These MPs claim that people have a right to go through life without hurt feelings, and bold-facedly argue that limits on free speech are necessary. Free speech, if limited, becomes something that is clearly not “free.”
Free speech is all or nothing. So it should give us pause in the West that Storseth’s bill received such a mixed reaction in the House of Commons. While society appears to be onside and in favour of killing the hate speech section, with many religious and secular groups publicly stating so, the seriousness of the debate appears to have been lost on some MPs. According to Storseth, the bill has received some opposition MP supporters who will vote in favour when the time comes. While that is better than nothing, this is a bill all members of parliament should stand up and endorse publicly.
