I've been going through the Federal Canadian Human Rights Statute and the regulations under it, as they might apply to a complaint against Maclean's.
1. Time Limitation on Actions. Section 41 provides a one-year limitation for filing complaints, though it seems to be a very soft restriction:
the Commission shall deal with any complaint . . . unless in respect of that complaint it appears . . . the complaint is based on acts or omissions the last of which occurred more than one year, or such longer period of time as the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances, before receipt of the complaint.
Were the complaints all filed within one year of Steyn's October 20, 2006 story in Maclean's? Or doesn't it matter because the story is still up on Maclean's website?
2. Grounds. Section 3 provides that religion and national origin are grounds:
For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
3. Section 13 covers hate messages sent by telephone or computer, but not by broadcasting (or, presumably, by print):
Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
If I am reading this statute correctly (and I might not be), it seems strange--and a bit unfair--that a print magazine that also has a website, like Maclean's, can be subject to a Human Rights complaint, while a print magazine that does not have a website would not be subject to a complaint for publishing the exact same article.
Are Canadian bloggers aware that the hate speech law applies to them but not to broadcasters or to print magazines that don't put their most controversial stories on the web?
Reading the Canadian Human Rights statute literally, it appears to have a loophole. If an employee of Maclean's were to read Mark Steyn's article in its entirety on a radio station in Canada (or even just the complained-of passages), then the Hate Speech provisions of the Human Rights Statute would not apply. Any "matter" in the article would then be "communicated . . . in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking," so then "subsection (1) . . . does not apply." Maclean's would argue that the print magazine is its main medium, so the radio broadcast would be just another secondary distribution that restored its initially protected status as a print magazine.
It is unclear whether broadcasting on a US radio station that specifically broadcasts into Canada (proved not only by strength of signal, but perhaps by having advertisers serving customers living in Canada) would count. Also, it is unclear whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission or Canadian courts would apply the statute as written in the face of such a transparent voiding of the jurisdiction of the Commission to hear the complaint under the Canadian Human Rights statute. And one would expect a new complaint to be filed for violating some other statute.
At least until this case is over, Maclean's might consider buying 15-30 minutes of time in the middle of the night once a week on a small radio station and reading stories from its magazine.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Strange Canadian Human Rights Statute Might Have a Loophole.--
- Canada Restricts Freedom of Speech.--
- Canadian Islamic Congress Website Reveals Its Views.--
- Free Speech Challenged in Canada.--
As for the exclusion of radio broadcasts, I wonder if there's some other statute to a similar effect but applying only to radio broadcasts.
Sometimes, being clever isn't enough.
Is there something about the Canadian system of pardoning that makes this less insane than it would be in America? How does someone get pardoned in Canadian law, anyway?
If you have to ask, you probably can't afford it.
This seems to be an obscure definition of the word "enlightened" with which I am unfamiliar.
With respect to your radio loophole, presumably the station would then fall afoul of the Radio Regulation 1986, s. 3(a), and be subject to liability under the Broadcasting Act. Instead of the human rights commission, it would be the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission that would be the relevant body.
Bizarrely, given the intent of the respective constitutional authors, Canada is functionally much more decentralized than the U.S. and seemingly becoming more so.)
That's exactly what I find so creepy about the canadian law: as I read it, it would prohibit you from saying (in Canada) something like, "Scooter Libby ought to be in jail for perjury" (or maybe it only applies to convictions in Canadian courts, but you get the idea); you'd be discriminating against Libby based on a conviction for which he's been pardoned, so he could sue you. Or am I missing something?