Article
The Legal Aspects of Hate Speech in Canada
Share
Released:September 1, 2020
Project: DemX
This brief report was prepared for the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression (CCDE) in March 2020. It aims to support the Commission’s efforts to better understand hate speech in Canada and to respond through research, public consultation, stakeholder outreach and other forms of democratic engagement.
It begins by providing an overview of hate speech and its relationship to freedom of expression in Canadian law. It explores the legal tensions and policy questions that have historically animated debates surrounding hate speech in Canada, and summarizes some of the most significant recent developments. The report also examines some of the ways that technological, economic and social change have begun to challenge the ways we think about harmful expression.
Hate speech is a topic that is sometimes polarizing or divisive. This report does not attempt to canvass every potential view on the subject, and is only intended as a starting point for further dialogue. At the end of the document, readers will find a list of discussion questions meant to encourage reflection, reveal common ground and provoke new insights within their own communities.
The words we choose to describe social harms have legal implications as well as symbolic and political power. This report generally uses the language of “hate speech” (which tends to be the common term used by Canadian courts), or “hate propaganda” when describing the Criminal Code offence. However, readers will note that certain authors choose different language, some of which may encompass expression that is lawful in Canada (e.g., “harmful speech”), while others suggest a more narrow scope than the Canadian legal definition of hate speech would tend to include (e.g., “violent” or “dangerous” speech).
Articles
Recommendations to Strengthen Canada’s Response to the Spread of Disinformation Online
In our second year, we again invited Canadians to volunteer to advise the Commission on Democratic Expression as well as the federal government on the regulation of digital platforms. In the midst of a pandemic, more than 600 Canadians volunteered to serve and 42 were randomly selected to represent the provinces and territories.
Recommendations to Strengthen Canada’s Response to New Digital Technology and Reduce the Harm Caused by their Misuse
How can we create a vibrant digital public sphere that doesn’t by design expose people to an ocean of baser instincts — much less to hatred and abuse? The Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression explores the question of online harms, as Canadians spend more and more time on the Internet, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic. These 42 members, randomly selected from a pool of volunteers, who we hope represent the widest possible range of voices and perspectives, come together to provide 33 recommendations that balance the harms of misuse of technology with freedom of speech.
Harms Reduction: A Six-Step Program to Protect Democratic Expression Online
The health of our democracy ultimately depends on citizens having the capacity, willingness and opportunity to participate in our public life. Following nine months of study and deliberations, the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression has settled on a six-part, made-in-Canada plan to address hate speech and other online harms, while balancing freedom of speech.
Processes, People and Public Accountability
Researchers and reporters documented three forms of harmful online communication during Canada’s 2019 federal election campaign: abuse of individuals, intolerance and hate toward marginalized groups in public online spaces, and an increase in support for hate in private online spaces. In this report, authors Heidi Tworek and Chris Tenove propose a framework to distinguish key dimensions of harmful online communication in Canada, and offer several principles to guide policy development in Canada.
Public Interest and Media Infrastructures
Today’s media systems include the powerful social media companies that watch, commodify, and manipulate us as they buy and sell our data. Mike Ananny urges a more sophisticated understanding of the privately controlled infrastructures where important decisions are made shaping behaviours, beliefs and online news. These might look like boring, messy, technical places where only engineers work, but regulators need to grasp their complexities and tackle the prevailing secrecy to better protect the public interest.
Science Disinformation in a Time of Pandemic
By drawing parallels to elections, climate change and the anti-vaccination movement, author Christopher Dornan illustrates how disinformation about COVID-19 can pose significant risks for public health, social cohesion and collective trust. Dornan identifies several useful recommendations for citizens, governments and social media platforms to consider to effectively combat disinformation and engage in evidence-based discussion about scientific findings.