Conservative Member of Parliament Brian Storseth's (in suit) put forward the recently passed Bill C-304. The bill repeals hate speech of section 13 Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA.) Section 13 had been abused against religious groups. www.brianstorseth.ca.OTTAWA (CCN)—A private member’s bill that would axe the controversial censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) has now gone to committee for further study.

Conservative MP Brian Storseth’s Bill C-304, which would repeal the so-called hate speech provision Section 13 in the CHRA, passed l second reading by a 158-131 vote Feb. 15.

A lone Liberal, MP Scott Simms who represents the Bonavista-Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor riding in Newfoundland, voted with the Conservatives, who overwhelmingly supported the bill. Otherwise, the NDP and Liberals opposed the bill.

“I was excited that there was one courageous enough to stand up for his constituents and his own personal views,” said Storseth, who said he hopes for more support from Opposition MPs. Bill C-304 now moves to the justice committee where Storseth hopes it can be fast-tracked for study. If he is successful in getting a priority placed on the bill, it could come up for a final vote in the House this spring, and then go on to the Senate.

The Catholic Civil Rights League applauded the second reading vote. In a Feb. 16 news release, the League said Section 13 “has been used to penalize the peaceable expression of opinion based on religious belief.” It cited the complaints brought against Catholic Insight Magazine that were later dropped, but not until the magazine had spent more than $30,000 defending itself.

“The hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code provide limits on expression that are sufficient in a democracy,” said League executive director Joanne McGarry. “A situation where accusers are free to file complaints that may even lack a serious basis, and then leave the accused to pay his or her own potentially high costs in response, is unacceptable.”

“Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are both Charter rights, and any limitation on them belongs in Parliament and the courts, not administrative tribunals,” she said.

Storseth said he was grateful to have such widespread support from religious and other groups from all ends of the political spectrum for his bill.

“The key is to stay focused,” he said. “This is one step. We now have to get this through the justice committee as quickly as possible and get this bill forward in the interest of all Canadians.”

“This is an archaic piece of legislation,” he said. “It’s really hurt freedom of expression in our country.”

Even opponents of Storseth’s Bill C-304 agreed that Section 13, which deems any communication “likely to expose” an identified group to hatred or contempt, needs to be reviewed.

“I am not suggesting that section 13 is perfect,” said NDP MP Mylène Freeman Feb. 13 in Bill C-304’s second hour of debate in the House of Commons. “Indeed, that section is problematic.”

“The main point I would like to make here today is that the principle behind maintaining section 13 deserves the support of all members,” she said.

“Religious minorities, women, queer folk, visible minorities, persons with disabilities, recent immigrants, they are the ones who are most often targeted by the dissemination of hate, and are often the people who suffer from multiple forms of systemic inequality, including poverty and exclusion from the legal justice system,” she argued. “They may lack the financial and legal supports to persist in a legal case, and in the meantime, without section 13, their victimization would be allowed to continue unhindered.”

Suggestions for tightening up the Section 13, might include: having the attorney general filter prosecutions to make sure frivolous complaints do not get through; tightening up the definition of hate speech in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Taylor Decision; preventing the filing of similar complaints in more than one human rights jurisdiction; and removing the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s ability to assess penalties, she said.

NDP MP Joe Comartin also argued for keeping a way of targeting hate speech without the high threshold necessary for criminal charges. “We need two tiers in order to have a free society for individuals who are regularly targeted by anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic people,” he said. “We can include homophobia as well.”

“There are a number of areas where the language used draws hatred and contempt to an identifiable group,” he said. ““Canadians as a society are saying no, that it not the kind of society we want.”

Under Section 13, the truth is no defense, neither is intent, as the Act considers only the possible discriminatory effect of the communication on the groups listed in the legislation. Thus those who might write factual or honest opinion about radical Islam can run afoul of Section 13 as Maclean’s Magazine did for running articles by best-selling author Mark Steyn. Christians who criticize homosexuality on the basis of religious belief can also find themselves facing complaints, as did Catholic Insight.

Storseth argued the bill’s purpose is the protection of fundamental freedoms. “It has been argued on the other side that all freedoms are about equal,” he said. “However, without the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly have less value if we do not have freedom of expression to go with them.”

He rejected a two-tier approach to dealing with freedom of expression, calling open debates an “imperative to having a healthy and free western democratic society.”