Simple amendment needed to protect free speech in Alberta

It is time to amend Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, which prohibits writing or saying anything that is “likely to expose” a person to “hatred or contempt.”

---

Why? Because Section 3 casts far too wide a net and risks chilling legitimate expression on topics of importance to public discussion, such as gay marriage or Islamic terrorism. While the Act states that Section 3 is not to “interfere with free expression . . .,” it is susceptible to politically-motivated use, much more so than other parts of the Act which prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and publicly available services. Freedom of expression should be given the widest legal scope possible because the effects of allowing human rights bureaucrats to determine what we are allowed to think and say are too ghastly to contemplate. Think Soviet Russia. Of course, Alberta today is nowhere near totalitarianism, but history has taught us that freedoms are fragile and vigilance has to be eternal. Two high profile Alberta cases illustrate some of the dangers of censoring opinions deemed “likely to expose” a person or group to “hatred or contempt.” First, Pastor Stephen Boissoin's letter to the Red Deer Advocate about the “evil” (in his eyes) of homosexuality fell afoul of Alberta human rights law and led to a Commission order forbidding him – for his entire life! – from expressing his opinions on homosexuality. The long arm of the law now reaches all the way down Mr. Boissoin's throat. Second, Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard, endured what he describes as a 900-day ordeal costing him $100,000 for republishing the infamous Danish cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad. While Levant was found not to have violated Section 3 of the Act, the chilling effect of his ordeal on others is obvious. Deep pockets should not be a condition of exercising the right to free speech. Each case ended differently, raising the question: what counts as “likely to expose to hatred or contempt?” Was Boissoin's letter more or less hateful than the Danish cartoons? If they are equally hateful, why the different outcomes? And what if the statements are true? As Alan Borovoy, now retired General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says, even a book telling the truth about the Holocaust would violate Section 3 since it would be “likely to expose” Germans to “hatred or contempt.” The Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership does not endorse the views expressed by the people and organizations which have come under attack pursuant to Section 3. We do, however, have grave misgivings about the threats to free expression inherent in this provision. Section 3 should be amended to read as it did prior to 1996. This would mean the removal of the words “issue,” “issued,” “statement” and “publication.” It would also remove that part of the law which refers to material which is “likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt.” In our view this would suffice to eliminate the menace presented by the section in its current form. (See our recent report,Toward Equal Opportunity for all Albertans: Recommendations for Improvement of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, for more details.) We do not, however, recommend repeal of section 3 in its entirety. If amended as we suggest, the provision will still capture cases such as the sign saying “No Natives” in a restaurant window, as happened in Lethbridge not long ago. Many Albertans will be surprised to learn that this kind of blatantly crude discrimination still occurs. We do not see any significant threat to free expression from the law if it continues to apply only to such limited forms of speech. The amendments to section 3 which we suggest, however, have to be complemented with other needed changes, such as a more active and publicly engaged Human Rights Commission which would speak out at appropriate moments on the harm done by hurtful and offensive speech. The Commission must show ethical leadership in support of people - for example, Muslims, gays, or fundamentalist Christians, who feel they are under siege - but without using the force of law to stifle speech which, no matter how unethical, obnoxious or just plain ill-considered it may be,should not be censored by the State.

---