Freedom of speech in Canada
|Part of a series on the|
|Culture of Canada|
Freedom of speech in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Freedom of speech in Canada is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society. This can often be the subject of controversy as some feel the conditions for reasonable justification are vague, granting the government an unreasonable amount of control over freedom of speech. Others feel that such restrictions are necessary in order to balance the fundamental freedoms of one party against those of another, and to otherwise limit political violence and tyranny of the majority. Hate speech (which refers to the advocacy and incitement of genocide or violence against a particular defined racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, religious or other identifiable group), and obscenity (a broad term referring to literature that is unreasonable, dangerous or intensely inappropriate to society at large, such as child pornography or fraudulent medication intended to promote sexual virility), are two examples that gain significant attention from the media and in public discourse.
Canadian libel and defamation law
Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms.
Libel involves publication in some permanent form like writing in a book, newspaper, and slander.:91 Defamation is a tort that gives a person the right to recover damages for injury due to publication of words that were intended to lower a person’s character.:51 The law therefore encourages the people in mass media to publish with caution, to avoid any forms of slander and to respect a person’s freedom of expression.
"Defamatory libel" is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. Subsection 298(1) defines defamatory libel as a "matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published." Section 300 prohibits the publication of defamatory libels that the publisher "knows is false." Section 301 prohibits the publication of any defamatory libel, but this section has been found unconstitutional because it could criminalize the publication of matters that are true.
Censorship on media
It can be argued that censorship and regulations limit the freedom of speech in media and are an uncontrolled and no longer "free" environment. Censorship is often described as a removal of an individual or group's voice. Censorship is both an incentive and reason to the performance of certain expressions, attitudes, and behaviour, and how a society chooses to organize its system of social control. It contends that we have more to fear from the economic groups who have the power to control the media through ownership and advertising than the state itself. Mass media of communication is no longer a reflection of ideas in the community but are part of a class structure.:210–221
Censorship redefines the idea of freedom of speech as a public right rather than a private one. Senator Keith Davey took a supporting view, writing in the Toronto Globe and Mail: "Too many publishers harbor the absurd notion that freedom of the press is something they own...of course the exact opposite is the case. Press freedom is the right of the people.":7
Front de libération du Québec crisis
After the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) crisis, many attacks were made against the press, suggesting that the media were irresponsible in the way they elaborated rumours during a time of crisis.:226 Criticism reached highs to the point that after Pierre Laporte’s death on October 17, 1970, the Liberal Party whip, Louise-Philippe Lacroix accused the journalists of being responsible for the death.:227 Secretary of State Pelletier and the Chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC) discussed ways of achieving restraint regulations but concluded it would lead to accusations of censorship.:2 The War Measures Act was invoked and CBC news reports in Ottawa received instructions that they were to broadcast only stories that were attributed to an identifiable source, retrain comments from the opposition parties, and to not allow their names to be identified with political statements. It was decided that the Secretary of State should see that private and public sectors of the media were accepting the government decisions.:230 Program Secretary to the Prime Minister, J. Davey, thought the government should concentrate on four areas—one being for the Strategic Operations Centre to continue monitoring the media from week to week.:11
Associations and controls
Communications control institutions are governmental agencies that regulate, may change the media, regulations, and new regulatory bodies. In 1982, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said: "When the media do not discipline themselves, the state steps in".:91 There are some inter-media control institutions that regulate themselves to avoid being regulated by the government such as: The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Ontario Press Council, publishers associations, and advertising groups.
National Media associations, many newspapers, magazines, and major retail chains have supported the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. The Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunication Commission (CRTC), must approve all scripts for broadcasting advertisements of food, drugs, and cosmetic products over Canadian stations.:126 In Ontario, the Liquor License Board, under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, publishes a book listing what can and cannot be published in print and what can be broadcast in advertising for wine, beer, and cider products. All commercials that are intended for children under 12 years of age must follow the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children and is managed by the Children’s Committee of the Advertising Standards Council.:128
Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta regulate the use of the title "engineer" and impose penalties of up to $10,000 for a first offence and $25,000 thereafter on the use of the title or related language or seals by those not accredited by the relevant provincial engineering society, regardless of qualification.
What can and cannot be published in books raises questions of free speech and tolerance. In 1962, D.H Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley's Lover faced a court in a decision to be banned. The case challenged the federal government’s obscenity laws under the criminal code. The book frequently made use of the word ‘fuck’ and used detailed descriptions of adultery which insulted many readers.:73 It faced issues with obscenity and the notion that it would corrupt and degrade readers. The rules of censorship by the federal government were not clear on the bans and censorship of literature and in 1962, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the book could continue to published and found Lady Chatterley’s Lover not obscene.
Mark Steyn’s 2006 book about the Muslim Diaspora in the West, America Alone, was the subject of a complaint from Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, stating that the article "discriminates against Muslims on the basis of their religion. It exposes Muslims to hatred and contempt due to their religion". The complaint against Steyn and Maclean's magazine, which excerpted the book when it was published in 2006, was heard before three human rights commissions: Ontario's, which declared it lacked jurisdiction; British Columbia's, which dismissed the complaint; and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which dismissed the federal complaint without referring the matter to a tribunal.:114–119 This case has been cited as a motivating factor in the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, legislation that permitted federal human-rights complaints regarding "the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet".
By the early 1990s, Canada was the second largest exporter of audiovisual products after the United States. The Canadian State of 1968 added to the obligations of broadcasters that Canadian broadcasting should promote national unity, and that broadcasters must obey the laws respecting libel, obscenity, etc.:95
Some suggest that Canada is advanced of multiculturalism but some challenge this with issues of ethnic and religious minorities. In 2004, broadcast carriers were to monitor foreign stations at all times and delete any content that may go against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Restrictions were placed on the broadcasting license for Al-Jazeera, an Arabic-language news network, by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).:17
On January 11, 1982, the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) began airing television programs across the Northwest Territories and Northern Quebec. For almost a decade, Inuit communities received mostly English-language programming which raised a concern because many people in the North did not understand English. Therefore, Inuit did not share the same cultural orientation and could not identify freely with their traditions or of southern Canada.
Inuit Tapirisat began a three-year Anik B Project name Inukshuk. The Inukshuk Project linked six communities in three Arctic regions by satellite through one-way video and two-way audio. Inukshuk aired teleconferencing, live and pre-taped programs and initiated the concept of an Inuktitut television network. The Inuit Broadcasting Corporation assures more Inuktitut programming on television and Inuit have increasing access to information. Inuit today are familiar with the role of communications on history and the process of contemporary development—cultural stability was strengthened because new electronic media allowed Inuit adaptation of their own institutions and participation was brought to the North.:237–245
The Internet has become the gates of communication whether it is through interacting with each other or providing a wide selection of information to the public. Free speech and the use of the Internet ties with the capability of governments restricting free expression and the use of the Internet.:81 Although the Internet seems an innovative and sure form of media, it is potentially associated with irresponsible speech and dangers with it. A 2008 study by the National Research Council of Canada broadly elaborated on user-generated video and the prevalence of the internet as potentially meaningful for civil society and the development of free expression through digital means in Atlantic Canada.
Richard Posner, an American jurist and legal theorist, identifies four means of publication:
- Anonymity: The Internet permits users and creators of communications to remain hidden. This makes it far easier to produce, create and consume false, illegal, and dangerous material such as child pornography or hate speech.
- Lack of quality control: Almost anyone can post almost anything on the Internet. On the Internet unsubstantiated assertions are as easily published as well-researched articles.
- Huge potential audience: The Internet provides access to millions of potential readers and viewers across the world. This can magnify any harm cause by speech
- Antisocial people find their soul mates: People with odd, eccentric, subversive, and dangerous views can find each other very easily on the Internet. Such people become emboldened not only to express their ideas, but also to act upon them, their self-confidence bolstered by membership in a community of believers. This can bring dangers of people such as pedophiles.
The Internet has brought concerns about the limits of free speech that copyright law imposes. This can become a restriction on freedom of speech if a person wishes to use work without proper permission. Copyright protects the words and images used to portray the ideas but it does not protect the ideas themselves. When it comes to any restrictions on free speech there needs to be a valid justification for it, but the case of copyright seems to override the idea that it is against free speech—rather a solution to the protection of people’s words and images.:88–95
Internet providers have laws against hate messages and if sites violate these terms they become shut down. Bernard Klatt was the owner of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) named Fairview Technology Centre Ltd in Oliver, British Columbia. In 1998, Klatt was identified as a host of multiple websites associated with hate speech, neo-Nazi organizations, the Toronto-based Heritage Front, the World Wide Church of the Creator, and the French Charlemagne Hammerhead Skinheads. Local businesses, schools, students and government agencies had easy access to the racist sites because Fairview Technology was their service provider. The Hate Crimes Unit established by the government in British Columbia examined the complaints against Fairview, and required Fairview to accept full legal liability for the material on the sites; Klatt then sold the Internet service to another company.:259
The case of R v Elliott is believed to be the first instance of a Canadian being prosecuted for speech via Twitter, an online digital forum, with potential implications for online freedom of speech in Canada. The Ontario Court of Justice later dismissed the charges due to a lack of evidence and criminal intent, finding that Gregory Alan Elliot engaged in limited legitimate and free debate, although potentially vulgar and obscene. In addition, it was asserted that those who create hashtags on Twitter, do not ultimately control the tweets utilizing said hashtags, and that the prosecution's claims partly rested on those impersonating Elliot. Elliot could not be found guilty for actions not committed by himself.
Pornography presents a difficult challenge for anyone who believes in freedom of expression. Should pornography be tolerated, in all its manifestations, provided that no one is directly harmed in its making: or are there more important values at stake here than freedom?— Nigel Warburton, Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction:59
Canadian pro-pornography feminist Wendy McElroy argues for the toleration of pornography.:64 In her book, XXX: A Woman’s Right to Pornography (1995), she believes that women (and men) are free to make up their own minds about their use of pornography and should not be forbidden access to it. If this is true, then pornography should be of some importance since it allows its users to learn about themselves and is part of the principle of free speech. Some believe that the law should protect values and that anything that may corrupt or undermine these values should be banned by the law. However, those in favor of defending free speech believe that any restriction must strongly be based on more than just a reaction of disgust and hatred.:59–72
The approach by the Supreme Court on free expression has been that in deciding whether a restriction on freedom of expression is justified, the harms done by the particular form of expression must be weighed against the harm that would be done by the restriction itself.:164 This makes the justification of limits of free expression difficult to determine. Those who are against pornography argue that pornography is basically treated as defamation rather than as discrimination. As Catherine MacKinnon, a feminist and activist based in the United States, says: "It is conceived in terms of what it says, which is imagined more or less effective or harmful as someone then acts on it, rather than in terms of what it does. Fundamentally, in this view, a form of communication cannot, as such, do anything bad except offend".:11 Pornography also raises issues concerning rape, violation of women and child pornography.
Free speech in times of crisis
Communication has an importance in times of crisis to warn communities of disasters and help follow the impact of it. The terms of Canada’s renewed Official Secrets Act causes fears in Canadian media in which they may not be free to report on abuses in the national security sphere because they could be prosecuted. The Canadian attitude to criminalizing speech associated with terrorism has so far been somewhat careful.:157–158 Canada amended its 2001 Anti-terrorism Bill to provide that “for a greater certainty, the expression of a political, religious, or ideological thought, belief or opinion” will not constitute a terrorist activity unless the expression satisfies the other definition of terrorist activities. Canada did increase the ability to seize and remove hate propaganda from the Internet and new penalties for damage to religious property in connection to terrorism and hate speech.:158–159
Despite the War Measures Act, the federal cabinet has power to censor the media by declaring a war emergency or an international emergency. The Emergencies Act does require that the acknowledgment of an emergency be presented before Parliament within seven days where the Parliament can have a chance to revoke it. Julian Sher, president of the 1000-member Canadian Association of Journalists, predicted that the media would launch a court challenge if the Charter of Rights was violated. However, cases in the past have seen courts approving military censorship. For example, during the Canadian army’s confrontation with Mohawk warriors at Oka, Que, there were restrictions on the media including the cutoff of cellular telephones. In 1970, during the October crisis in Quebec, the War Measures Act was imposed and the media were not allowed to publish the manifestos of the Front de Liberation du Quebec and even some journalists were jailed.
- Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy
- Censorship in Canada
- Freedom of speech by country
- Freedom of religion in Canada
- History of Canadian newspapers
- Libel trial of Joseph Howe
- Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- "Freedom of Expression", Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
- "Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)". Justice Laws Website. Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved 22 December 2016.
- "Criminal Code of Canada". http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-71.html. Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved 22 December 2016. External link in
- "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved 22 December 2016.
- "Censorship". Canada's Human Rights History. Dominique Clément. Retrieved 15 October 2015. External link in
- Flaherty, Gerald A. Defamation Law in Canada. Ottawa, Ont.: Canadian Bar Foundation, 1984.
- Richard, John D., and Stuart M. Robertson. The Charter and the Media. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Bar Foundation, 1985.
- MacKinnon, Catharine A. Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993.
- Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009.
- Singer, Benjamin D. Communications in Canadian Society. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1983.
- Senator D. Keith Davey, “How Misreading Jolted the Press”, Globe and Mail, September 16, 1981.
- Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. The Scope of Tolerance : Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. London: Routledge, 2006.
- Minutes of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence (6 November 1970) (classified “Secret”).
- "Section 40.(1): Offence, practice of professional engineering", Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.28., Ontario e-Laws. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
- "Commission statement concerning issues raised by complaints against Maclean's Magazine, Ontario Human rights Commission, 9 April 2008.
- Macdonald, Neil. "Free Speech, Eh? Why Is Canada Prosecuting Mark Steyn?". CBC News. 13 June 2008.
- "Reasonable limits on the expression of hatred: Mark Steyn and the Canadian Human Rights Commissions", Matthew Omolesky, in Democratiya 16 (Spring/Summer 2009).
- "Good riddance to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act" Archived December 6, 2012, at the Library of Congress, Jonathan Kay, National Post, 7 June 2012.
- Beaty, Bart, Derek Briton, Gloria Filax, and Rebecca Sullivan, eds. How Canadians Communicate III: Contexts of Canadian Popular Culture. Edmonton: AU, 2010.
- Milliken, Mary C.; Gibson, Kerri; O'Donnell, Susan (2008). "User-generated video and the online public sphere: Will YouTube facilitate digital freedom of expression in Atlantic Canada?". American Communication Journal: 1–14. Retrieved 22 December 2016.
- Blatchford, Christie. "Christie Blatchford: Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech". National Post.
- Nadeau, Jean-Phillippe. "Procès pour harcèlement criminel sur Twitter". ICI Radio Canada.
- "Ontario man not guilty in Twitter harassment case stands by online behaviour". CBC News. Retrieved 22 December 2016.
- Brent, Knazan. "R. v. Elliott". CanLII. Ontario Court of Justice. Retrieved 22 December 2016.
- Sumner, L. W. The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2004.
- Manson, Allan, and James Turk. Free Speech in Fearful Times: after 9/11 in Canada, the U.S., Australia & Europe. Toronto: Lorimer, 2007.
- Criminal Code of Canada, s.83.01 (1.1).
- "War and the media Cabinet can invoke full-scale censorship". Globe and Mail [Toronto, Canada] 17 January 1991: A4. Canadian Periodicals Index Quarterly. 23 October 2011.
- Allan C. Hutchinson; Klaus Petersen (1999). Interpreting censorship in Canada. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-8026-4.
- Richard Moon (2000). The constitutional protection of freedom of expression. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-7836-0.
- "Freedom of Expression: Essential Principles". Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom. 11 October 2011.
- "Freedom of Speech and Thought: Endangered?". Candlelight Stories, 4 May 2009.