Hate laws are still sound

Letters

Editor: The editorial entitled "Ideas can't be banned" (Bulletin, Oct. 10) makes two simplistic arguments in favor of unbridled free speech. Its first argument is that because censorship can be inappropriately used (such as Canada Customs temporarily withholding essays in support of Israel), we should realize that all censorship is bad. Its second argument is that the law can be avoided through the technology of the Internet. These arguments could be applied to almost any law, since any law can be misused or circumvented by technology or other means.

If my response to the writer of the editorial was to publish a statement that the writer is a racist or pedophile (which I do not believe), then I assume that my speech should be stifled, and I would not have a problem with such censorship. The fact is, however, that banning speech that is false and defamatory against an individual can also be misused – people are falsely accused of libel all the time. Also, I could use the technology of the Internet to commit this libel anonymously and avoid being caught.

The reason that these facts do not compel us to repeal all laws against defamation is that prohibiting the dissemination of false, defamatory statements that can impact a person's reputation is for the public good and therefore is sound policy. The policy remains sound, despite the fact that the law can be misused or circumvented.

The issue ignored by the editorial is whether the policy behind prohibiting the dissemination of hate propaganda is sound. This requires a balancing of the interests of promoting free speech against the harm caused by hate speech. Our Supreme Court conducted this balancing and ruled that prohibiting the spread of hate speech is a reasonable limit on the exercise of free speech.

While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, hate speech exposes members of certain groups in society to hatred and contempt in the same way that libel exposes individuals to loss of reputation. Relying on counter speech to repair the damage does not work. Does the existence of the Internet compel us to allow unhindered freedom to broadcast virulent hate propaganda on billboards, broadcast and print media?

As the editorial states, Jewish organizations, such as Canadian Jewish Congress, have been at the forefront of supporting laws against hate speech. The fact that these hate speech laws caused justifiable materials a one-day delay at customs certainly does not change the necessity of having these laws.

Nisson Goldman
Chair, Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific Region

^TOP