Hate speech laws in Canada

Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike.

Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience.

The Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau appointed the seven members of the committee: Maxwell Cohen, Dean of Law at McGill University;[5] Dr. James A. Corry, Principal of Queen's University; Father Gérard Dion, professor of industrial relations at Université Laval;[6] Saul Hayes, QC, executive vice-president of the Canadian Jewish Congress; Mark MacGuigan, then a professor of law at the University of Toronto; Shane MacKay, executive editor of the Winnipeg Free Press;[7] and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, then a professor of law at the Université de Montréal.

The Court found that would constitute the offence of advocating genocide under s. 318, if it had occurred in Canada, and therefore met the legal standard for deporting the individual.

The judge also referred to Pressault's more than 20 tattoos, including several Ku Klux Klan and Nazi symbols covering the defendant's torso, in his decision to give jail time: "The harm that he has done to his own body to leave a lasting impression of his beliefs clearly shows that he has unresolved issues and is filled with racist feelings and hate."

The judge also cited Presseault's criminal record for violent offences in concluding that the safety of the public would be jeopardised by allowing him to serve his sentence in the community.

[20][21] During the 2008 federal election, David Popescu, a perennial candidate in Sudbury, Ontario, answered a question at a high school by saying "homosexuals should be executed".

In 2005, the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan found that there was a reasonable doubt whether Ahenakew intended to promote hatred in his initial statement to the conference.

The newsletter, Your Ward News, was delivered monthly to homes in Toronto before the federal government ordered Canada Post to cease distribution in 2016.

Ontario Court of Justice Judge Richard Blouin disagreed with the defendants' claim that the publication was meant to be satire, noting "both men were fully aware of the unrelenting promotion of hate.

[33][34] Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories all have enacted provisions relating to hate speech and publication, from a civil remedy perspective.

The Canadian Human Rights Act formerly had a provision, section 13, dealing with communication of hate messages in matters under federal jurisdiction, such as telecommunications.

In its report on June 17, 2019, it made several recommendations for government actions to counter online hate, including adding a provision for a civil remedy similar to the former s. 13 of the Code.

[38]: s.42 On April 2, 2002, the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald published an editorial which reported that a meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference was taking place in Malaysia on the subject of terrorism.

[39] Muslim and Palestinian organizations and their supporters filed a complaint about the editorial to the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission.

[45] The Human Rights Code of British Columbia provides that no-one is to publish any publication, statement, emblem or other representation that "is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt", based on "race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age."

[49] In Khanna v Common Ground Publishing Corp., the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal considered a complaint about an image on the cover of a magazine.

[51]: s.13  The Act defines "prohibited ground" to include: "race, colour, ancestry, discrimination nationality, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, family affiliation, political belief, political association, social condition and a conviction that is subject to a pardon or record suspension.

"[51]: s.5 Any person or group of individuals who believes that they have been the target of a hate publication may lodge a complaint with the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission.

[52]: s.34  If the Queen's Bench upholds the complaint, it can order remedies of a civil nature, which may include monetary damages for injury to dignity or self-respect.

[52]: s.44 In 1991, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission applied for an injunction under the Code against a motorcycle parts shop, to prevent the sale of a series of stickers.

The Court held that the stickers infringed the Code's prohibition on hate publication based on race and religion, and would tend to encourage others to engage in discriminatory practices against the members of the three groups.

The advertisement gave the citations for four different passages from the Bible, and an illustration of two male stick figures holding hands, with a red circle and slash mark superimposed.

Three gay men, including Gens Hellquist, a local activist, filed complaints with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission against Owens and the publisher of the newspaper, alleging that the combination of the four bible passages and the image under the red circle and slash infringed the Code's prohibition on hate publications.

The board of inquiry held that the combination of the universal symbol for "not allowed" or "forbidden", coupled with the text of the four Bible passages, amounted to a breach of the Code provision.

The board of inquiry applied the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the Bell case and concluded that the Code provision did not infringe the Charter.

[58][59] In 2001 and 2002, Bill Whatcott, leader of a small group called the Christian Truth Activists, distributed four different flyers in Regina and Saskatoon that had controversial comments about homosexuals.

The Queen's Bench ruled that the contents of the pamphlets met the rigorous standard required by the earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Tribunal correctly held that they violated the Code.

In its decision, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott, the Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Code provision relating to hate speech and publications.

However, the Court found that some of the language of the Code provision, relating to "ridicule, belittlement and affront to dignity" did not meet the strict standard required by section 1 of the Charter and was therefore unconstitutional.