Good morning.

My remarks will be offered in both official languages.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to participate in this discussion today on online hate. I am joined by my colleague Monette Maillet, Deputy Executive Director and Senior General Counsel.

The proliferation of online hate is a clear and present danger. In recent years it has become painfully clear that allowing online hate to fester can result in horrific consequences. We are therefore encouraged that the justice committee is conducting this important study. We are pleased to see that you are hearing from several witnesses representing the people and communities most often targeted by hate.

Hate speech, and particularly online hate, is both an urgent public safety issue and a fundamental human rights issue. Hate speech violates a person's most basic human rights and freedoms: the right to equality and the right to live free from discrimination.

I will focus my remarks on three key points. First, online hate causes harm. Second, there is a gap in the law when it comes to protecting people from online hate. Third, a comprehensive strategy is needed.

The Internet has given everyone the power to have their own platform and to be a broadcaster. People can be louder than ever before and influence more people than ever before. In many ways, this is a major step forward. However, the Internet has made it possible to amplify and spread hate speech.

Far too often, people are victimized by online hate because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or where they're from. Online hate has been found to cause fear and serious psychological harm. It shuts down debate and it promotes conflict, division and social tension. At its most serious, online hate incites violence, and too often, far too often, leads to tragic situations.

If Canadians targeted by online hate are expected to live their lives in a toxic atmosphere, we're basically failing them. Canada has a responsibility under international and domestic laws to promote equality and to protect all Canadians from discrimination.

This brings me to my second point. There is a gap in the law when it comes to protecting people from online hate. The now repealed section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has given the commission an informed perspective on addressing online hate in Canada.

As many of you may know, section 13 was originally written into the CHRA to prevent harm from prohibited hate messages, based on anti-Semitism being communicated by telephone in the 1970s. Following the attacks of September 11, section 13 was broadened to include messages communicated over the Internet. For many years, it was effective in shutting down a number of extreme neo-Nazi websites. However, this approach is not well suited to respond to today's rapidly evolving technology. As you know, section 13 was deemed to be a constitutionally sound provision.

As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that some limits to free speech are justifiable in a free and democratic society. We have noted that previous witnesses have spoken of the need for a definition of “hate”. To this end, we encourage this committee to look at the definitions put forward by the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the hallmarks of hate developed by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

In the discussion around freedom of expression and hate speech, we must not forget the fundamental right to equality and to be free from discrimination. There is no hierarchy of rights, and rights sometimes compete. The commission believes there needs to be an appropriate balance. That is going to require meaningful participation and accountability of all involved parties.

What we can say for certain is that something must be done quickly to address the proliferation of online hate. It threatens public safety, violates human rights and undermines democracy. As other witnesses have said, addressing online hate will require a proactive approach that involves tracking, intervention and prevention.

This brings me to my third point. A comprehensive strategy is needed. It will take a concerted and coordinated long-term effort that is proactive, multipronged and multi-faceted. It will take innovative thinking, technical expertise, proper resourcing, coordination and co-operation.

The strategy will need to bring together all levels of government, telecommunication and Internet providers, social media platforms, civil society, academia and, most importantly, victims of hate.

These efforts must be led by the government. The government has a duty to meet its domestic and international human rights obligations. This includes protecting citizens from hateful speech.

In conclusion, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is committed to fighting against hate and to participating in a broader, coordinated solution.

In response to evidence heard by the committee, the CHRC finds that a simple amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include provisions similar to the former section 13 would be insufficient. In this modern era, this legal change alone could neither provide the scope nor the level of protection or remedies necessary to prevent online harassment or to effectively reduce hate propaganda.

If the committee or the government explores possible amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or to other legislation as part of a broader response to hate propaganda issues, the CHRC would be happy to contribute its expertise.

In the coming days, the CHRC will submit a number of documents, including a summary report of a recent jointly organized event to discuss online hate.

Thank you. My colleague Monette Maillet and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)