Fri, April 30, 2004
Svend law ups ante
By LINK BYFIELD

Bill C-250 cleared the Senate on Wednesday, and your right of free speech has been dealt a gaping wound.

C-250 is a private bill sponsored by Svend Robinson, the noted socialist MP and jewel collector.

It curtails criticism of homosexuals by adding them to other identifiable groups protected from "hate speech" under the Criminal Code.

All too often, the naive citizen thinks: "Well, so what? Nobody should be allowed to say hateful things about anyone."

However, before so easily abandoning a right your forebears fought and bled for, ask: "But who will decide what speech is 'hateful'?"

Certainly not you or I.

We used to be free to set our own limits, but nowadays they're set for us by human rights tribunals, government-funded complainants, prosecutors and judges.

This can get expensive. A magazine I published, Alberta Report, spent years and thousands of dollars defending itself from a determined Jewish chap who was terribly offended when we described someone else in a story as sporting flashy rings, open shirts and gold chains on a hairy chest.

He felt strongly this was an anti-Jewish slur, and an Alberta human rights tribunal found us guilty of racism (though we eventually fought our way out of it).

When we appealed, a judge ruled that while Alberta's human rights law explicitly permits "free expression of opinion on any matter," this should not be taken literally.

Anything that might offend protected groups, he ruled, must be considered in the context of the public value of what's being said, the nature of the medium, the general character of the audience, evolving social sensitivities, and other factors.

All of which makes a mockery of free speech.

The rules are impossible to understand, and whatever they might mean today is irrelevant tomorrow.

Gays have already persuaded human-rights tribunals across Canada that our "fundamental freedoms" under the Charter -- freedom of speech, belief and association -- matter less than their right not to be offended.

The "Svend Act" now ups the ante by moving the battle to the criminal courts, and you don't need a college degree to see who will win.

You just have to look at the disgraceful way this law passed.

Opponents such as Senator Anne Cools were shouted down as bigots. Shockingly, this private NDP member's bill was propelled through both Houses with the discipline and prestige of a government bill, without any government minister taking responsibility for it.

Crucial rules of procedure were ignored by the Speaker in the Commons. Debate was suppressed at every stage in the Senate.

The Senate Speaker allowed an illegal double-closure motion unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history.

Only five witnesses asked to address the Senate in support of this Bill, and all were heard.

Of the 2,164 witnesses seeking to oppose it, the Senate chose only nine, allotting them five minutes each.

Senators ignored tens of thousands of messages that poured in against it.

Robinson, who addressed the Senate twice by invitation, conceded there is little practical need for the bill.

But he said its "symbolism" to gays and lesbians "is enormously important."

But Svend is no more trustworthy with rights than he is with rings.

The next gay project will be to get someone with conservative views charged under section 319.1 of the Criminal Code -- something any gay activist can attempt to prosecute as a private citizen.

The accused will insist that his or her statements were a responsible use of free speech.

The prosecutor will reply (echoing unproven gay rights claims for the last 30 years) that any criticism of the gay lifestyle triggers back-alley muggings and the suicide of gay youths.

He will argue that these are the kind of fatal breaches of the public peace that section 319.1 seeks to prevent, and that it permits no excuses (truth, religious belief, public interest, etc.).

This is next.

The question now is how to stop it.