Manitoba Press Council

The Canadian Human Rights Commission should be commended for its recently released report on the subject of hate speech and free speech.

The CHRC hired constitutional law expert Richard Moon to make recommendations concerning, “the appropriate mechanisms to address hate messages, and more particularly those on the internet, with specific emphasis on the role of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the role of the Commission.”

This, obviously, was the result of the tumult caused by the national, and two provincial, CHRC decisions and comments about the Maclean’s magazine article titled “The future belongs to Islam” published in 2006 .

There has been much opinion suggesting that it was not appropriate for CHRC’s to judge complaints involving freedom of expression in media. Recent editorials in the Globe and Mail and The Winnipeg Free Press have lauded the report and in particular the author’s support of the idea of provincial press councils.

The report’s author was asked to consider the mandates of HRC and tribunals, and whether governmental or non-governmental organizations have a role to play. He has presented many thoughtful recommendations and following are some that refer to our area.

Mr. Moon suggests that, “section 13 of the CHRA be repealed so that the CHRT no longer deals with hate speech.” Further to that, “Hate speech should continue to be prohibited under the Criminal Code but this prohibition should be confined to expressions that advocate, justifies or threatens violence.”

Later he states, “Under most accounts of freedom of expression, the state is not justified in restricting expression simply because it causes harm by persuading its audience.” He also points out, “It is often said that we should respond to racists claims not with censorship, but by offering competing views that make the case for equal respect or by creating more avenues for marginalized groups to express themselves.”

We would add that newspapers subscribe to that idea and prove it in on a daily basis.

He suggests that, “There are many arguments for protecting freedom of expression but all seem to focus on one, or a combination of, three values: truth, democracy, and individual autonomy.” Also, “the proper scope and limits of the freedom should not be debated exclusively in legal or constitutional terms and should not simply be left to the courts for resolution.”

The author argues that, groups within the community should have a real opportunity to respond to expression that is not so extreme that it violates criminal or human rights laws but may nevertheless affect their position in the larger community.”

The report concludes that press council’s are an appropriate forum for this sort of problem. “To advance this end, all major print publications should belong to a provincial or regional press council that has the authority to receive a complaint that the publication has depicted an identifiable group in an unfair or discriminatory manner.” The report continues that publications should be required to print the decision of the press council.

The Manitoba Press Council believes that Mr. Moore has made reasonable recommendations regarding press councils. Before this report was contemplated and released we handed down a decision in 2006 that upheld a complaint against a Manitoba newspaper for publishing a letter that was unduly critical of Muslims. We pointed out that the letter contained mostly incorrect statements about Muslims and that opinions should not be based on wrong facts. Our experience has shown that aspects of opinion and hate speech can be handled.
Regarding the point that some provincial press councils appear moribund, we suggest that this could be corrected easily and quickly if newspapers would promote the availability of the councils. If newspapers believe that press councils are a better way than government intervention, they could be more supportive of councils.

–John Cochrane

Chairman