Fighting Hatred

How? How battle an unfortunate reality that some people will always search out others in whom to invest their pathology of hate? Education, most certainly; an ongoing program of public awareness. Advancing the ennobling reality that all people are invested with like attributes, emotions and needs, and that a pluralist society is a richer, more culturally diverse, interesting and potentially more peaceful one.

Canada presents as having all the attributes of a country whose population stems from various origins; bringing with them, through emigration from their countries of origin, traditions and histories that have the potential to enrich the welcoming country to which they have immigrated. Canada has protective laws to ensure that its diverse-origin population's rights are protected.

Canada, as a liberal democracy, encourages its people to remember and to honour their origins, their traditions, their culture, while at the same time encouraging them to embrace the values and social norms of the larger community. Canada guarantees to its people freedoms not found in too many other parts of the world, in large part those areas of the world from which many immigrants have departed, to find a better life.

But no society, no country, can guarantee freedom from casual insults based on origin, on ethnicity, on visible differences between peoples, on religious adherence. Ignorance abounds anywhere that people aggregate, but the more that people intermingle and interact and introduce themselves to one another, the likelier it is that perceived 'differences' become diminished, and acceptance occurs.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been the focus of quite a bit of criticism in the past year relating to the matter of its prosecution of allegations of incidents of hate speech. Canada has enacted legislation that makes it unlawful to foment hatred against others, which can imperil peace and security. That the human rights commission seek to do likewise is an unwelcome redundancy.

Some individuals and groups have, however, sought justice against perceived or alleged defamatory speech singling out ethnic or religious groups through resorting to complaints with the various provincial human rights commissions. And it is the redundancy of that problem, the lack of discrimination in deliberating on such complaints, the victimization of those accused that has many exhorting government to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

An independent review undertaken by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon - an expert on human rights - commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission has reached the conclusion that "The use of censorship by the government should be confined to a narrow category of extreme expression - that which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group".

Mind, I would personally take issue at the "'justifies' violence" portion of that statement, in that as far as I am concerned, it is simply unseemly to feel that anything justifies violence against others. In denigrating others, criticizing or attempting to ridicule others, their beliefs, their history, their customs, one demonstrates gross ignorance, but it's unlikely that this can be construed as justification toward violence.

Professor Moon reached the conclusion that it is simply impractical to deal with group defamation or deleterious stereotyping through the commissions, and hate crimes should be better left to the laws in place to protect against real instances of promoting hate. Prejudice, he points out, is so pervasive in society, rearing its socially ugly head continually through sheer ignorance, that it cannot be battled through the human rights commissions.

Which should return to their original purpose of protecting minorities from abuse based on their ethnic origin, colour, religion, when employment or housing is not available to individuals because of social prejudice. In a country proud of its institutionalized and socially accepted freedoms and guarantees of equality, this simple function, called upon less frequently than when the commissions were inaugurated should remain their primary function.

Several of Professor Moon's recommendations make very good sense; that the CHRC and its provincial counterparts should carefully vet the complaints that come across their desks for appropriateness, and not obligingly accept each and every complaint as though they all have equal merit. And that police should be prepared to make better use of the law that can have the effect of forcing Internet service providers to remove hate propaganda.

Another, that provinces should establish "Hate Crime Teams" comprised of police and prosecutors smacks of a totalitarian state, albeit in the pursuit of a worthwhile end. Better yet, to raise the awareness of the responsibilities inherent in parenthood, teaching impressionable young people of the equality of all people in this society by patterning.