|
December 21, 2001
Doug Collins' final case
Dead writer is still the subject of a human rights decision.
PAT JOHNSON REPORTER
He haunts us still. Months after the death of former North Shore
News columnist Doug Collins, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal
has ruled that a 1998 decision against Collins and his newspaper
did not contravene the Human Rights Code.
Collins, with his lawyer Doug Christie, had claimed that the Human
Rights Tribunal exceeded the law when it ordered him to pay $2,000
in damages to Harry Abrams, a Victoria resident, for "injury to
his dignity, feelings and self-respect." The North Shore News
was also ordered to publish a summary of the tribunal's decision
and cease publishing statements that expose Jewish persons "to hatred
and contempt."
Christie, on behalf of Collins, maintained that the decision was
"not a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society...." Human Rights Tribunal
member Tom Patch considered the issue, reviewing the relevant aspects
of the original case and came to the conclusion that the earlier
tribunal decision did not violate the limits to free speech permitted
under Canadian law and judicial precedents.
The position of Collins (and, after his death, the Collins estate)
was that section 7(1)(b) of the B.C. Human Rights Code contravened
provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Patch
pointed out that section 1 of the Charter recognizes the validity
of justifiably limiting human rights and stated that the B.C. Human
Rights Code is an example of that justification.
Nisson Goldman, a lawyer and chair of Canadian Jewish Congress,
Pacific Region, said the decision reflects Canadian legal precedents,
which recognize that certain types of speech are not legally permissible,
specifically if they are seen to cause public harm.
"This country is different than the American concept," he said.
Goldman acknowledged that this decision could be appealed to a higher
court, even conceivably reaching the Supreme Court of Canada, but
he doubted the matter would be taken much farther.
"I think this Collins chapter is now closed," he said. Abrams,
who initiated the complaint, told the Bulletin that he has
been vindicated.
"It's a decision that upholds a system and essential human rights
mechanism of remedy and redress for people and groups who have been
defamed for basic characteristics about themselves that they cannot
change, such as ethnicity, gender or degree of disability, this
time involving hate in public media," he said.
"There is a distinction that deserves to be made, to media managers,
journalists, editors and publishers, that there are marked distinctions
between hate propaganda and reasonable discourse. Also, what we've
reaffirmed, is that there's a backstop available for media that
refuse to govern themselves according the most basic ethics of journalism."
The fact that his opponent was dead when the decision came down
has little practical effect on the issue at hand, said Abrams. But
he had harsh words for the legacy Collins left.
"One less hate-monger in the world is always an improvement,"
said Abrams.
For those who viewed Collins as a hero of free speech, Abrams suggested
a tribute: "Let them name a bunker after him!"
Abrams, who has been critical of Canadian Jewish Congress for being
too bureaucratic, said his success at bringing Collins before the
tribunal is an example of what an individual citizen can do.
Like Goldman, however, Abrams acknowledged that the other side
could appeal to a higher judicial body; but Abrams was defiant.
"It's still possible that Christie will try," said Abrams. "But
let him try. We're ready."
^TOP
|
