BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

A REPORT ON SVEND ROBINSON'S HATE BILL (BILL C-250)

Svend Robinson's private member's Bill C-250, formerly C-415, was referred last May to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. His bill expands the identifiable groups in the Criminal Code protected against genocide (Section 318) and hate propaganda (Section 319) to include those identified by their sexual orientation. (See Reality, July/Aug/Sept, 2002, p.1.) This bill, we believe, will result in a curtailment of religious freedoms in Canada and, in particular, will shut down debate on the homosexual issue.

On February 25, 2003, the Justice Committee began its examination of Bill C-250. REAL Women attended this meeting in order to monitor its proceedings.

Svend Robinson, MP for Burnaby-Douglas (NDP) and self-acknowledged homosexual sponsor of the bill, addressed the Committee, as did Donald Piragoff, Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section of the Department of Justice. Mr. Robinson expressed his view that hatred against "gays" is widespread and a "serious problem." Among the examples of hatred he gave were the murder of Matthew Shepherd in the United States, and the US activist, Rev. Fred Phelps, whose small group of followers threatened to come to Ottawa last year, although they didn't. Robinson claimed that his bill is "necessary" because the Ottawa police had advised him that it would not have been possible to use the Criminal Code against Rev. Phelps, and that human rights legislation was also inadequate. Mr. Robinson named, as supporters of his bill, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and Ontario NDP leader, Howard Hampton, as well as John Reynolds (Alliance House Leader, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast) and James Moore (Alliance, Port Moody-Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam). He also stated that "every attorney general and justice minister in Canada" supports his bill.

Mr. Robinson then stated:

Interesting that the Alliance allowed the bill to pass after one hour of debate without any vote whatsoever. If they're concerned about the bill, I'd have to ask what was the problem there that that went through.

In this regard, it should be pointed out that last May the Alliance party, at the time of second reading of Mr. Robinson's bill, had supported the bill in principle and wanted only to make amendments to it. However, the Alliance has changed its position on the bill and is now completely opposed to it, according to a press release it issued on November 21, 2002, which states:

The Canadian Alliance maintains that while this bill seeks to protect certain members of society, it will have negative consequences on the rights of Canadians to freedom of expression and religion. It is the Canadian Alliance position that the bill should be defeated because it will substantially interfere with the right of religious and educational leaders to communicate essential matters of faith.

Mr. Robinson did acknowledge that there was resistance to his bill when he stated:

…[it] is no secret, there has been a massive campaign around this bill. I think it's fair to say that members on all sides of the House have received extensive correspondence, e-mails, letters, phone calls, about the bill.

Mr. Robinson went on to say:

Hate crimes directed at gay and lesbian people are far too widespread in Canada. One of the problems is that statistics are actually still relatively scarce but wherever these statistics have been collected, and most recently just a couple of weeks ago, the Toronto Police Department issued their statistics.

Mr. Robinson was, of course, attempting to convey to the Justice Committee that his bill was urgently required, implying in this regard that the Toronto Police statistics indicated widespread hate crimes against homosexuals and lesbians. This is not true.

In 2002, the Toronto Police Hate Crime Unit reported a decrease in the number of reported hate crimes. In 2001, the Unit identified a total of 338 hate crime occurrences. That number decreased to 219 in 2002. This represents a 35% decrease from the previous year. With regard to the issue of crimes due to sexual orientation, specifically, the offences decreased from 24 in 2001 to 11 in 2002 - the lowest number recorded since 1994, when there were also 11 such occurrences.

Mr. Robinson also claimed that gay and lesbian youth suicides are occurring because of discrimination against them. This is not correct either. There is no statistically significant relationship between homosexuality and suicide. (See Reality, March/April, 2002, p.11.)

Donald Piragoff defined "hate" for the Committee according to the Supreme Court decision in the famous 1990 Keegstra case. That is, to establish "hate," there must be not merely dislike but detestation and "an intention to stimulate hatred against an identifiable group" (emphasis ours). However, when presented with specific examples, Mr. Piragoff was unable to say whether they constituted "hate." He indicated the courts would decide individual cases and that the need for the Attorney General's consent would act as a "screening function."

Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough East) quoted an obviously hateful diatribe against men by feminist Germaine Greer and suggested that this could be hate based on heterosexism. The quotes were:

Men are freaks of nature, fragile, fantastic, bizarre. The male is a kind of idiot savant, full of queer obsession, doomed to aggression and injustice, not merely towards females, but towards children, animals and other men. Men bash women because they enjoy it. They torture women as if they torture an animal because they get off on it. Better educated men get the same thrill from torturing their partners verbally. Aggression is part of the currency exchange and all masculine dealings. Men loathe women....

Mr. Piragoff would not give a definitive opinion as to whether Ms. Greer's statements constituted "hate," and stated that this would be an issue for the courts to decide.

Mr. Piragoff went on to explain that in 1990 in the Keegstra case, the Supreme Court held that the hate propaganda provision in the Criminal Code (Section 319), violated the freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Charter but that such violation was "justified" and thus was constitutional. He also said that the addition of sexual orientation to the Criminal Code might affect the constitutionality of the section if this were challenged in the courts, and that legislators should be aware of this possibility.

When asked if there had been similar laws passed in other countries, Mr. Piragoff said that since this is not a government bill, specific study on background information on the matter has not been undertaken, and the Justice Department was only responding with what material was available on file.

He did say, however, that although there was no hard statistical data on hate propaganda directed specifically at the category of "sexual orientation," Statistics Canada is now undertaking a pilot project to collect such statistics.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that, according to the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (Feb. 13, 2002 issue), the Statistics Canada survey asking Canadians to declare their sexual orientation for the purpose of developing "human rights law" (re: hate crime legislation), apparently found Canadians squeamish and hesitant about revealing this information.

According to the Capital Xtra article, to get around this touchy problem, Statistics Canada has asked the Canadian Community Health Study (CCHS) to gather the information on behalf of Statistics Canada since Canadians, they believe, will be less hesitant to respond to the question if it is included in a health-related survey. In short, Capital Xtra claims that Statistics Canada is disguising the question on sexual orientation under the pretense it is a "Community Health Survey" question. This telephone survey of 130,000 Canadians by The Canadian Community Health Survey began in January 2003, and the data is expected to be collected by the end of the year, but it will take a further year to analyze it.

Already, the homosexual community, especially John Fisher, Executive Director of the homosexual lobby group, EGALE, is predicting that this study will not be accurate because "many Canadians will not tell the government they are gay." Mr. Robinson also stated this at this Justice Committee hearing on Bill C-250 when he suggested that the statistics collected by Statistics Canada will not be representative because "gays and lesbians are less likely to report such hate crimes." ("Hate crime" and "hate propaganda" are often used interchangeably but are not the same; see Reality Nov/Dec 2000, p.15. )

Debate then followed when Vic Toewes, Alliance Justice Critic, inquired whether quotes from the Bible could be considered "hate", since the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and, more recently, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in December 2002, had concluded that the Biblical references in the Hugh Owen case were spreading "hate." (See Reality, Sept./Oct., 1999, "Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission Another Miscarriage of Justice", p.11.) At this point Mr. Piragoff claimed that the Human Rights Commissions dealt with discrimination, and the Criminal Code deals with "hate" even though the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, based on the Saskatchewan Human Rights Act had decided that Owen's advertisement using Biblical quotations and a logo depicting two men holding hands superimposed by a red bar, exposed homosexuals to "hatred and ridicule!" It seems Mr. Piragoff was confused or perhaps he did not wish to, or could not, explain this discrepancy.

Mr. Piragoff told the Committee it was the role of the legislature to determine whether there was a need for Mr. Robinson's amendment to the hate legislation.

The Committee decided to request a 30-day extension to consider the bill (the 30-day extension refers to the days only that Parliament is sitting). Mr. Robinson stated that, after the 30-day extension granted to the Committee, he hoped the Committee would be in a position to hear witnesses on the bill during the second half of April, 2003.

However, under the House of Commons' rules of procedure, the Justice Committee is permitted to recommend the bill be withdrawn or not be further proceeded with - hopefully it will choose to do this. However, the final decision is up to the House of Commons as to the outcome of the bill. In any case, we will have to wait until the elapse of the 30-day extension to ascertain whether the Justice Committee will proceed to hear witnesses, or whether it recommend the bill be withdrawn.

REAL Women will continue to monitor this Committee when it meets to further discuss this bill in April prior to the elapse of the 30-day extension.

The minutes of the meeting and eventually, the evidence presented before the Committee are posted at:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoCom/CommitteeMinute.asp?Language=E&Parliament=9&Joint=0&CommitteeID=287

Submissions or requests to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-250 can be made to the clerk of the Committee, Mr. Patrice Martin, tel. (613) 996-1553, fax (613) 992-9069 and e-mail just@parl.gc.ca The mailing address is: The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Committees Directorate, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS