In commemorating the 70th anniversary of the D-day landings, Tony Abbott observed that Canada is a longstanding friend of Australia and has always shared our commitment to democracy and people's right to be free.
Canada's successful effort to repeal laws similar to Australia's section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act shows its commitment to greater personal freedom.
Visiting Canada this week, the Prime Minister would have seen that hatred had not been unleashed.
He should follow the lead of his Canadian counterpart, Stephen Harper, whose government considered that existing criminal laws were the appropriate legal mechanism against racial hatred — not subjective and vague so-called human-rights legislation that curtailed freedom of expression.
Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act was repealed in June last year. This section made it unlawful to communicate, by phone or internet, "any material that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" based on grounds of discrimination — including race, nationality and ethnic origin.
Like section 18C, section 13 gave Canadians the ability to seek legal redress against those who offended them. Defendants could be subject to lifetime speech bans, as well as monetary penalties.
At its core, section 13 favoured identity group rights over the classical human right of free speech. The 1990 Canadian Supreme Court decision of Taylor v Canadian Human Rights Commission made this clear.
Then chief justice Brian Dickson explained that "messages of hate propaganda undermine the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contribute to disharmonious relations among various racial and cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society".
Dickson went on to state that the promotion of rights for certain groups was of such "pressing and substantial importance" that it warranted the limitation of the freedom of expression of all Canadians.
Dormant for decades, a policy debate about this limitation emerged in the late 2000s. The battlelines were drawn between those who sought to promote group rights and endorsed state censorship, and those who sought to defend the classical liberal tradition.
Several high-profile legal disputes were the catalyst for this debate. In 2006, Ezra Levant published the infamous Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in his magazine, the Western Standard.
He published these in an apparent effort to cover the news story, where major news publishers around the globe lacked the courage.
Following a complaint by a Calgary imam, Levant was interrogated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. He posted the exchange on YouTube, where it went viral.
At one point, the commission's investigator asks Levant what was his "intent and purpose" in publishing the cartoons.
The question goes to the heart of the problem with the law: the judicial system becomes the arbiter of what and how opinions can be expressed.
Recall that Andrew Bolt breached section 18C not because he got his facts wrong, as many claim, but because Federal Court judge Mordecai Bromberg did not like the tone of Bolt's articles.
Another prominent Canadian case was against Mark Steyn. Between 2005 and 2007, Steyn wrote 22 separate articles about Islam in Maclean's magazine.
The series included an extract of his book, which argued that the spread of radical ideology in Muslim countries was a threat to Western values.
Three laws students approached Maclean's to print a counter article. When its editor refused, they filed suit in the Human Rights Commission.
Complaints were also filed by British Columbian Muslims and the Canadian Islamic Congress.
Although the complaints did not proceed, the head of the commission took the liberty of writing an open letter to Maclean's that implied Steyn had to put up with the continued threat of restrained speech, simply because it was the "law of the land".
Following an extensive media campaign, the law of the land changed for the better.
A private member's bill repealing section 13 passed through the Canadian parliament, with support from Harper's Conservative government.
The repeal was met with the same type of criticism as we are hearing for repealing section 18C. For example, Canadian senator Nancy Ruth said that the repeal would "remove protection from disadvantaged groups", and would be a "victory for hate speech".
However, the Canadian sky remains intact. Hatred has not been unleashed in Canada — nor will it be in Australia.
Freedom of speech is a core element of political freedom in any true liberal democracy. Abbott had the courage to promise to repeal section 18C. Hopefully, he will draw inspiration from the Canadians to finish the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment