• Cochrane Calendar

    • Tue 5/22/2012: Cochrane Music Society Celebration of Music
    • Sat 6/2/2012: Beyond Words: A Library Benefit Sale

    View Full Calendar

  • Register - It's Free!

Richards wants to scrap section on hate speech

November 16, 2011
By: Lindsay Seewalt
Print This Post

Wild Rose MP Blake Richards

Wild Rose MP Blake Richards, is voting in favour of the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

Dating back to the Trudeau era, this section was implemented to defend human rights from hate speech. According to Richards, the legislation in fact undermines the basic liberty of freedom of expression due to its vague definition.

“For one thing, it targets dissemination of hate messages without ever clearly defining what constitutes hatred or contempt,” said Richards in a press release.

“It considers acts of hate or contempt as ‘any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt’. That is so vague that it would be laughable if not for the fact that it carries real consequences.”

Richards continues on to explain that Section 13 subjects citizen’s Charter rights to those individuals who wish to suppress ideas they may find distasteful, but do not actually constitute hate.

Hate speech is already prohibited by the Criminal Code of Canada and it has been widely acknowledged that Section 13 is in conflict with the guarantee of the freedoms of expression and beliefs under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The repeal of Section 13 was the result of an independent review of the CHRC in 2008 and the CHRC found the hate speech provision unconstitutional based on a ruling in September 2009.

The Wild Rose MP is in favour of the popular consensus that Section 13 is dated, vague in definition and needs to be removed from the CHRC according to his Nov. 11 Wild Rose Report.

No related stories.

One Response to “Richards wants to scrap section on hate speech”

  1. preston says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Removed or rrewrote so the terms are not so vague. Far easier it is for a non minority to disolve even the vagus of laws then it would be rewrite them, update them or still stand behind the sound theory of what some inuendos or off the hand remarks.
    No, we must be careful, a majority is a dangerous beast when squared off against the minoritys.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Editor's Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of the Cochrane Eagle, but only of the comment writer. The Cochrane Eagle appreciates your comments, but keep 'em clean. Foul language and defamatory statements will not be permitted. The Eagle reserves the right to edit or delete the comments, which are intended to be a vehicle for community discussion. We also require that you share your name with Eagle readers.