Supreme court decides which set of rights will receive more protection under law
In early October, Bill Whatcott was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada for distributing anti-gay pamphlets in Saskatoon, Sask. Although he was previously charged with the crime of hate speech, Whatcott maintains that he was simply exercising his right to freedom of speech.
Now, at the highest level of Canada’s justice system, the courts are faced with a constitutional dilemma: which sets of rights are to be protected? The freedom of expression, or protection of its citizens?
Canada has what could be called conditional freedom of speech. Section One of the Charter states: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
This means that individuals have the right to voice their opinion publicly, as long as it doesn’t infringe on any one else’s democratic right. In this case, the courts are debating whether Whatcott’s flyers infringed on people’s rights and feelings of safety by containing hate speech.
So what is hate speech?
In Canada, it is illegal to incite hate, which refers to when someone “advocate[s] or promote[s] genocide” of a specific group on the grounds of race, religion, ethnic origin, colour, gender or disability. A Hate crime is when an entire group is targeted, not on the basis of anything they have done, but for who they are.
Hate speech is defined as speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.” It is when people are made to feel like they are the target of a hate crime, and that their safety is in jeopardy.
Under the constitution, Whatcott has the right to hold an opinion and to announce it publicly; he just cannot do so in a hateful way. So were his pamphlets hateful or not? Hate speech presents a difficult problem for Canadians, because it is extremely difficult to define when someone is being hateful.
One argument made in Whatcott’s defense is that the constitutional definition of hate speech does not use language that is easily understood by the general public. The definition does not provide clear boundaries that people can take into consideration when expressing their opinion.
Referencing a previous case of hate crime, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin asked “When you have words such as belittling or affronting the dignity, which you would seem to concede fall outside the Taylor standard, shouldn’t those words be removed so that the ordinary citizen knows where the line is?”
However, one would think that if Whatcott was able to use the word “sodomy” with accuracy in his pamphlet, he would also be able to understand the meaning of the word “belittling”.
However, ambiguity remains. The issue is incredibly complex, with many arguments for either side. The court’s decision will not be reached for several months.
At The Ontarion, we found this case particularly thought provoking. As an independent student newspaper, we are expected to represent the interests of all members of the University of Guelph. Before we continue, let us be clear: we will not tolerate hate speech. However, as media, The Ontarion is often confronted with questions of integrity, especially in regards to how we present events.
When we choose what content to include in our paper, we decide what information we feel is in the student body’s best interest to know. Is that freedom of speech?
We are always challenged on how to present the news in a way that is informative, yet represent the opinions of our readership.
Whatcott’s lawyer, Thomas Schuck, asked the courts “to affirm that freedom of expression is not limited only to matters about which there is agreement but to matters about which there can be great – and sometimes heated, disagreement.”
There can be freedom of expression in a heated disagreement. That does not mean that the opposing argument is deemed inferior because of who it is delivered by. At The Ontarion we will not advertise an opinion that comes at another’s expense. At the paper, we have our own constitution, and it states “Persons associated with the Ontarion Inc. shall not knowingly, in working for The Ontarion, in print, or in The Ontarion office, discriminate against individuals on the grounds of race, class, disability, or political persuasion.”
The Ontarion is a media outlet for students. We want your opinion. However, Guelph is everyone’s home, and everyone is entitled to feel welcome, safe and represented. Respect your peers. Send us your opinion.
Loading ...
