Freedom of Expression Update

An Annual Summary Prepared for the BPC’s Freedom of Expression Committee by Franklin Carter, Leader of the Committee’s Issues Group (May 2005 to May 2006)

BOOK PUBLISHING

Mark Tushingham [Apr. 13, 2006] In Ottawa, Environment Canada barred Mark Tushingham, a scientist in the department and a science fiction novelist, from attending the launch of his novel, Hotter Than Hell. The novel describes a future in which global warming makes part of the earth too hot for life and a war breaks out between Canada and the United States over water. Ryan Sparrow, a spokesman for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, said
that the press release for the book launch identified Tushingham as a scientist at Environment Canada, and officials assumed that the author planned to speak without authorization for Environment Canada. “We would not have objected to Mr. Tushingham’s appearance if he had been referred to as a private citizen,” Sparrow said. On the same day, Natural Resources Canada announced the end of 15 environmental research programs that were part of the Kyoto Protocol.

Action: The Writers’ Union of Canada released “Writers Claim Muzzling Novelist Chills Cultural Creativity” on Apr. 21, 2006.

Raincoast Books [July 9, 2005] After a store in Coquitlam, B.C., inadvertently sold 14 copies of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince before the book’s official launch date of July 16, 2005, Raincoast Books acquired a court order to prevent people from reading, copying or discussing the book before July 16. The injunction also required anyone who had copies of the novel (along with any notes or descriptions) to return them to the publisher. Raincoast Books used the injunction to stop The Globe and Mail from publishing a review of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on July 16.

Marsha Boulton [May 26, 2005] Marsha Boulton, the wife of convicted crime author Stephen Williams, revealed that Ontario’s police had returned some of her computer files and other belongings in February 2005. Police had confiscated Boulton’s property—which included medical records, an unfinished novel, diaries and “bad poetry”—during a raid on her and Williams’s home in July 2003. The police were searching for evidence to convict Williams, the author of two books about the Bernardo-Homolka murders, of violating a court-ordered publication ban of 1995. Boulton spoke at a panel discussion sponsored by The Writers’ Union of Canada and entitled “Writers Under Attack” at the University of Toronto.[1]

Stephen Williams [May 12, 2005] The Ottawa Citizen reported that the Ontario government had blocked Stephen Williams from recovering 722 copies of his book, Karla: A Pact with the Devil, and $500 in royalties from his former publisher in Quebec. The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General instructed the sheriff’s office not to execute a writ of seizure granted to Williams because information in Karla might violate a court-ordered publication ban of 1995. Todd Sherman, a Crown attorney in Ontario, told Williams that the sheriff’s office would not enforce the writ until Williams proved that Karla did not violate any ban.

BOOKSTORES

Little Sister’s Book and Art Emporium [Apr. 19, 2006] The Supreme Court of Canada reserved judgment in the appeal filed by Little Sister’s Book and Art Emporium in Vancouver. The store—which sells books, magazines, and films with homosexual themes—is seeking public money to fund its lawsuit against Canada Customs. In 2001, Canada Customs seized several adult comic books entitled Meatmen that Little Sister’s had ordered from the United States. The border services agency declared that the comic books, which featured male homosexual and sadomasochistic themes, were obscene and prohibited. Little Sister’s is ultimately seeking a court decision that would prohibit Canada Customs from seizing similar publications and from imposing financial hardships on the bookstore in the future.[2]

[Sept. 12, 2005] A court in British Columbia convicted Justin French, Little Sister’s former bookkeeper, of stealing almost $86,000 from the bookstore. French was convicted on two counts of theft over $5,000 and sentenced to 18 months in jail. French committed his offences between May 2003 and February 2004.

CANADA CUSTOMS

Canada Customs [July 7, 2005] Xtra West, a newspaper in Vancouver, revealed that Canada Customs created a plan called “The Little Sister’s Project” in 1996 to identify exporters of prohibited publications and to seize “obscene” publications entering Canada. According to government documents obtained by Xtra West through an access-to-information request, Canada Customs

• divided book retailers and exporters into high, medium and low risk categories;


• focused on known exporters and authors of “obscene” publications or publications that dealt with youth sex;


• suggested “high-tech” and “low-tech” methods for randomly selecting importers for searches;


• considered meeting with “stakeholders” in the homosexual community to resolve the legal conflict between Canada Customs and importers of gay and lesbian publications but apparently vetoed the idea; and


• emphasized the need to show in court “that the department does not examine shipments solely because they are destined for a particular importer such as Little Sister’s.”

Canada Customs devised “The Little Sister’s Project” in 1996—the same year that Justice Kenneth Smith of B.C.’s Supreme Court rendered the first verdict in the then eight-year-old dispute between Canada Customs and Little Sister’s over the importation of “obscene” books, movies and magazines. The border services agency has had the authority to seize, detain and destroy “obscene” publications since 1847.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNALS

Stephen Boissoin [September 2005] The news media renewed their interest in a dispute over a letter published in the Red Deer Advocate in Alberta on June 17, 2002. The letter, written by Rev. Stephen Boissoin and headlined “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” strongly condemned homosexual rights activists and programs. The letter prompted Darren Lund, a homosexual activist and academic, to file a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) on July 22, 2002.[3] In the complaint, Lund suggested that Boissoin’s letter (and other similar letters) encouraged an attack on a 17-year-old homosexual man in Red Deer. The AHRCC is now hearing the dispute.[4]

Valerie Smith [Sept. 15, 2005] Valerie Smith, a Toronto activist who opposes violence in media, filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) against HMV, the biggest retailer of music in Canada. Smith wants to prevent HMV from selling “hate rap”—music that refers to women as “hoes” and “bitches” by performers such as 50 Cent, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and Jay-Z. Smith alleges that the music promotes violence against women and contravenes the OHRC’s policy against sexual harassment and gender-related comments.

Bill Whatcott [May 2, 2005] The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ordered Bill Whatcott—a self-described conservative Christian and former gay prostitute—to pay a total of $17,500 to four complainants for exposing homosexuals to hatred and ridicule. Between September 2001 and April 2002, Whatcott distributed pamphlets that described homosexuals as “sodomites” who shared “their filth and propaganda with Saskatchewan’s children.” Upon hearing the tribunal’s verdict, Whatcott declared that he would not be silenced and that he would not pay the fine.[5]

(See also the entries for Chris Kempling and Tomasz Winnicki.)

LEGISLATION

Bill C-2 [July 20, 2005] The federal government’s amendments to the child pornography provisions in the Criminal Code received royal assent.[6] The amendments, among other things, broaden the definition of child pornography. They also require accused persons to show that their impugned works serve a “legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art.” Throughout the early months of 2005, artists, writers and journalists expressed fears before Parliamentary committees that the amendments would criminalize serious fiction, journalism and memoirs about adolescent sex or child sexual abuse. Artists and writers also expressed concerns that the law would stifle some creativity and reportage.

Action: The BPC’s Freedom of Expression Committee sent a formal letter, dated June 28, 2005, to the Senate’s standing committee to express concerns about Bill C-2. The Writers’ Union of Canada (TWUC) sent Susan Swann and Marian Hebb, a lawyer, to present a brief to the Senate’s Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on June 29, 2005. TWUC also mailed a letter to federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler on Aug. 15, 2005, and asked for the deferred proclamation of two sections of the new law: the broadened definition of child pornography and the onus on the accused to justify an impugned work.

Charles Montpetit of the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois (UNEQ) spared no effort to influence the senators.[7] He

• sent UNEQ’s brief on Bill C-2 (in French and English) to all senators—not just to the members of the Senate’s standing committee;


• sent a 12-page sampler of editorials and press clippings to all senators;


• phoned 20 senators;


• appeared before the Senate’s standing committee on June 29, 2005;


• met personally with four senators on the standing committee on June 29;


• e-mailed an excerpt of a comic strip from his book, The First Time, to show that Bill C-2 would affect illustrations as well as written copy;


• sent press releases or open letters to all Canadian daily newspapers, a dozen cultural weekly journals and The Hill Times of Ottawa; and


• urged Quebec editorial writers to write about Bill C-2.

The senators did discuss the comic strip on July 7, 2005, and at least four newspapers based stories on UNEQ’s press release.

LIBRARIES

Canadian Librarians [August 2005] Responding to e-mailed enquiries from Gabriele Lundeen, chairwoman of the BPC’s Freedom of Expression Committee, seven Canadian librarians reported challenges to the following publications in public libraries throughout 2004–05. The publications included a newspaper, books and videos:

• [View table]

Action: The editors of the BPC’s Freedom of Expression Committee added the print titles to Freedom to Read 2006.

Jewish Supremacism Unmasked [Late October 2005] In Toronto, university officials denounced and removed hundreds of copies of an anti-Semitic pamphlet stuffed into books or left on open shelves in libraries at Ryerson University, York University and all three campuses of the University of Toronto. Jewish Supremacism Unmasked conveyed “a combination of classic anti-Semitic references and also hostile anti-Israel references,” said Tilly Shames, a director at Hillel of Greater Toronto. The pamphlet appeared to have been published by a white power organization in the United States. Toronto police launched an investigation to find the distributors.

Zahra Kazemi [June 3–6, 2005] Municipal librarians in Côte-St-Luc, Quebec, removed five of 23 photographs from an exhibition of Zahra Kazemi’s work. The photographs—which depicted scenes from Afghanistan, Iran and Palestine—and their captions offended some Jewish patrons of the library. After Kazemi’s son, Stéphan Hachemi, demanded that the library show all the pictures or none, Mayor Robert Libman closed the exhibit. Kazemi, an Iranian-born Canadian citizen, died in Tehran on July 11, 2003, after having been imprisoned, raped and tortured by Iranian authorities. She was imprisoned for taking photographs of a student-led demonstration outside Evin prison in Tehran.[8]

Action: PEN Canada released “PEN Canada Protests Censorship of Zahra Kazemi Photo Exhibition” on June 9, 2005. The press release urged the council of Côte-St-Luc to reopen the exhibit. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression sent a letter of protest, also dated June 9, to Mayor Robert Libman; the letter expressed disappointment with the decision to censor Kazemi’s work. The Canadian Library Association released “Canadian Library Association Urges Re-opening of Controversial Photo Exhibit” on June 13, 2005.

NEWS AGENCIES

Hugh Owens [Apr. 13, 2006] In Regina, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that Hugh Owens, an Evangelical Christian, did not violate the province’s human rights code when he place an anti-homosexual ad in Saskatoon’s StarPhoenix in 1997. The ad quoted four anti-homosexual verses in the Bible and displayed two stick-men holding hands within a circular “banned” symbol.[9] In 1997, three men complained to Saskatchewan’s human rights commission about the ad, and in 2001 a human rights tribunal ruled that the ad exposed homosexuals to hatred and ridicule. Owens was ordered to pay $1,500 to each complainant, and the StarPhoenix was also ordered to pay $1,500 to each complainant. In 2003, Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench rejected Owens’s claim that he was exercising his right of free speech and upheld the tribunal’s decision.

David Ahenakew [Apr. 3–4, 2006] In Saskatchewan, David Ahenakew stood before the Court of Appeal to reverse his conviction on July 8, 2005, for uttering hate speech. On Dec. 13, 2002, Ahenakew, a former head of the Assembly of First Nations and a member of the Order of Canada, said at a public gathering that Jews were “a disease” and suggested that the Holocaust in World War II was justified. A reporter then published Ahenakew’s remarks in Saskatoon’s StarPhoenix, and the Governor General’s office revoked Ahenakew’s membership in the Order of Canada.

Bill Dunphy [Feb. 28, 2006] In Ontario, a judge dismissed a novel attempt by police to force a journalist into handing over his interview notes. Justice Stephen Glithero of the Superior Court of Justice tossed out the police application to seize the notes of Bill Dunphy, a reporter for The Hamilton Spectator. Dunphy had interviewed people about the murders of a lawyer and her husband in Hamilton in 1998; Glithero said that police had failed to prove that Dunphy’s notes would provide any new evidence for the police investigation into the murders. In their application to seize Dunphy’s notes, the police cited for the first time a new provision in the Criminal Code. This provision, called a production order, authorizes judges to compel people not under investigation to turn over documents or data relevant to police investigations. This provision came into effect in September 2004.[10]

12 Danish Cartoons about Islam [February–March 2006] The long-simmering international dispute over the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s publication of 12 cartoons—which variously lampooned the Muslim prophet Mohammed, Muslim terrorism, the status of Muslim women and the Danish newspaper’s portrayal of Muslim immigrants—finally spread to Canada.[11] Some Canadians—usually Muslims—condemned the cartoons as blasphemous and demanded their suppression. Other Canadians defended the right of news agencies to reprint the cartoons regardless of the affront to Muslims. Still other Canadians defended the decision of most Canadian news agencies to forego publishing the cartoons. As Muslim riots and demonstrations around the world caused deaths and injuries, Canadians watched the following events unfold in their country:

• [Feb. 2] Canadian Muslim leaders began condemning the cartoons. In Vancouver, Younus Kathrada, the imam of the Dar Al-Madinah Islamic Centre, said in a letter to Jyllands-Posten that the cartoons were “unacceptable” for their “insensitivity and intolerance” and warned of a boycott of Danish products and the punishment of God. Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress, criticized the cartoons for stereotyping Muslims as violent, but he also condemned the violent Muslim riots abroad and defended free expression. By this date, eFrank—the Web site of Frank magazine—had also posted the 12 cartoons with a story attacking censorship.


• [Feb. 3] In Quebec, Le Devoir became the first newspaper in Canada to publish one of the cartoons. Editor Bernard Descoteaux said that he selected the least offensive cartoon to illustrate the news story.


• [Feb. 8] Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay condemned the violent attacks abroad over the cartoons. He also said: “Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada, but it must be exercised responsibly. We commend those Canadians who have acted appropriately.” At the University of Prince Edward Island, a student newspaper called The Cadre published the cartoons. The university’s administration immediately condemned the newspaper’s decision to publish the cartoons as “a reckless invitation to public disorder and humiliation” and ordered The Cadre to remove all copies of the newspaper from the campus.


• [Feb. 9] At St. Mary’s University in Halifax, about 100 Muslim students protested against Peter March, a professor of philosophy who had posted the cartoons on his office door. Some called for the professor’s dismissal from the university. A scuffle broke out when March appeared among the demonstrators and tried to provoke a debate about free expression. Administrators at St. Mary’s University also ordered March to remove the cartoons from his door. In Quebec, Salam Elmenyawi, the leader of the Muslim Council of Montreal, called upon the federal and provincial governments to condemn the cartoons. He said: “We must not allow Islamophobia to be spread under the illusory blanket of freedom of speech.” Elmenyawi also appealed for calm.


• [Feb. 11] In Toronto, a large crowd of Muslims gathered peacefully outside the Danish consulate to protest against the cartoons.[12] Eight Muslim leaders spoke, praising Allah, condemning insults to Islam and urging a boycott of Danish products. More than 25 Muslim organizations in the Greater Toronto Area urged members to attend the demonstration. In Montreal, about 300 Muslims gathered peacefully near McGill University to protest against the cartoons. Said Jazeri, the leader of the Al-Qods mosque, organized the protest. In Calgary, the Jewish Free Press published four of the cartoons.


• [Feb. 13] In Calgary, the Western Standard published eight of the cartoons. Ezra Levant, the magazine’s publisher, said: “I’m doing something completely normal. I’m publishing the centre of a controversy. That’s what news magazines do.” Levant’s decision to reprint the cartoons prompted varied reactions throughout Canada. In Ottawa, Kim Girtel, a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Canada, said: “The government of Canada does not determine the content of media publications. The cartoons are offensive to many, and given the impact they may have, it is regrettable that they’ve been republished.” Air Canada, Indigo Books and Music Inc. (Canada’s largest retailer of books and magazines) and McNally Robinson (a smaller chain of bookstores in Calgary, Saskatoon and Winnipeg) refused to stock the newest issue of the Western Standard. Mohamed Elmasry, the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), said that he wanted the Western Standard charged for “inciting hatred” against the Muslim minority and added that the CIC might lobby federal politicians to broaden the definition of hatred in the Criminal Code. Syed Soharwardy, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), said: “We will use every means within the Canadian legal system to stop this intellectual terrorism. This is yellow journalism. It is not civilized. The people will have to pay the price for what they have done. They have disturbed the peace in our society.” Soharwardy subsequently filed complaints with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission against the Western Standard and the Jewish Free Press.
  
• [Feb. 14] Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor said that the Western Standard’s publication of some of the cartoons increased the danger faced by Canadian troops in Afghanistan. “Radicals in Syria and Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, they get people roused up because their religion’s being offended,” said O’Connor. “We don’t need any more risk in the area than we have.”


• [Feb. 15] Prime Minister Stephen Harper said: “Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others. I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically.” The Canadian Association of Journalists declared its support for news agencies (including the Western Standard) that chose to publish the cartoons.


• [Feb. 17] In Nova Scotia, administrators at Halifax Grammar School ordered Tim Mitchell, a Grade 12 student, to stop distributing a newsletter that displayed a Danish cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. They also ordered Mitchell to write an apology, but he refused.


• [Feb. 18] Outside the Vancouver Art Gallery, hundreds of Muslims and others demonstrated peacefully against the cartoons. Several speakers said that the cartoons were designed to insult Muslims. Many protesters were angered that defenders of the cartoons cited freedom of the press for the cartoons’ continued circulation in Canada and abroad. “We are protesting because we are hurt,” said Aziz Khakhi, a member of the Committee for Racial Justice. “Our dignity has been lowered down. Freedom of the press does not include the right to insult religious sentiments.” A group called Mobilization Against War and Occupation organized the protest.


• [Feb. 19] In Toronto, a large crowd protested peacefully for two hours outside the Ontario legislature.[13] Several speakers condemned the publication of images of Mohammed and called for a boycott of Danish products. Protesters also collected signatures for a resolution calling for an “unconditional apology to the Muslim world for the blasphemous expression by the governments of Denmark and all other countries where the cartoons have appeared in print.” The rally’s organizers tried several times to prevent some people from speaking to the crowd. At one point, they formed a human chain to keep Aftab Malik, a member of the Toronto Council of Pakistani-Canadians, away from the news media. Malik’s placard said: “Kurt Westgaard—countdown to justice has begun . . . it’s just a matter of time.”[14]


• [Feb. 20] An opinion poll revealed that most Canadian journalists thought that Canadian news agencies—most of which had refrained from publishing the cartoons—should have reprinted the cartoons in the wake of the riots around the globe.
• About 17% of respondents said that all major Canadian media should have reprinted the cartoons.
• About 18% of respondents said that most Canadian media should have reprinted the cartoons.
• About 25% of respondents said that at least some of Canada’s biggest outlets should have used the cartoons.
• About 31% of respondents said that the major Canadian media were right not to publish the cartoons.

Compas, the opinion polling company, interviewed 221 randomly selected journalists between Feb. 16 and 18. The Globe and Mail published the results.[15]

• [Feb. 22] In Calgary, Crown prosecutor Gordon Wong refused to lay hate-crime charges against the Western Standard and the Jewish Free Press. “The [journals’] intent was to debate the issues within the articles,” said Wong. “That’s different than inciting hatred.” Wong also noted that the consent of the province’s attorney general was required before a prosecution could proceed.


• [Feb. 24] The federal Department of Justice refused to consider Muslim demands for the broadening of the legal ban on hate propaganda to include irreligious cartoons. “The provisions covering hate propaganda . . . as they stand strike a balance between the freedom of expression and the rights of minorities to be protected from hatred,” said Patrick Charette, press secretary to Justice Minister Vic Toews. “It’s broad enough right now.”


• [Feb. 28] In a published statement, 11 Canadian Muslim academics and activists said: “A curtain of fear has descended on the intelligentsia of the West, including Canada. The fear of being misunderstood as Islamophobic has sealed their lips, dried their pens and locked their keyboards. With hundreds of dead around the world in the aftermath of the now infamous Danish cartoons, Canada’s writers, politicians and media have imposed a frightening censorship on themselves, refusing to speak their minds, thus ensuring that the only voices being heard are that of the Muslim extremists and the racist right.” The authors urged Canadians to stand up for free expression in the struggle against Muslim extremists and Islamophobes who threaten hard-won democratic freedoms at home and abroad.[16]


• [Mar. 8] In Winnipeg, city councillors decided to stock copies of the Feb. 27 issue of the Western Standard in public libraries after debating whether to make the magazine available to library patrons. Shahina Siddiqui, president of the Islamic Social Services Association of Canada, expressed disappointment with the decision and said that the cartoons incited hatred against Muslims.


• [Mar. 11] In Toronto, about 150 people rallied outside the Danish consulate to support free speech and the publication of the cartoons. Demonstrators waved placards and Danish flags. Peter Kent, a former TV news anchor and federal Conservative party candidate, addressed the crowd. The demonstration was one of several pro-Danish rallies that occurred in March in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and London, England.

Action: On Feb. 10, 2006, PEN Canada released a statement by President Constance Rooke. On Feb. 27, 2006, the BPC’s Freedom of Expression Committee posted its “Statement on the 12 Danish Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed” on its Web site. On May 3 (World Press Freedom Day), Canadian Journalists for Free Expression sponsored a panel discussion called “Drawing Controversy: The Mohammed Cartoons” at the University of Toronto.[17]

Cheickh Bangoura [Feb. 16, 2006] The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeal of Cheickh Bangoura, an African-born resident of Ontario and former official of the United Nations. On Sept. 16, 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected his libel suit against The Washington Post. The lower court declared that Ontario could not claim jurisdiction over the dispute. In 1997, the Post said that Bangoura, while working for the United Nations in Kenya, was guilty of misconduct. Bangoura lost his job and, after moving to Ontario, sued the Post for libel in 2003. Bangoura said that he had been libelled in Ontario because Ontarians could gain access to the Post’s archived stories through the Internet.

Chris Kempling [Jan. 19, 2006] The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Chris Kempling’s appeal in his dispute with the B.C. College of Teachers. On June 13, 2005, the B.C. Court of Appeal had upheld the B.C. College of Teachers’ decision to discipline Kempling for criticizing, among other things, the “immorality” and “promiscuousness” of homosexuals in letters to the Quesnel Cariboo Observer from 1997 to 2000. Kempling is an Evangelical Christian and a social conservative with a doctorate in psychology in Quesnel, B.C. In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, he said: “This is a victory for the enemies of free speech and a sad day for all Canadians who value the free exchange of ideas in the public square.” He also declared an intention to file a complaint with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

[Nov. 15, 2005] The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal refused to hear Chris Kempling’s religious discrimination case against his former employer, Quesnel’s board of school trustees. The school board had disciplined Kempling for remarks that he had made during an interview on CBC Radio in December 2003. Kempling had described the private counselling services that he offered to homosexuals who sought to become heterosexual. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal declared that Kempling’s case had “no chance of success” after the B.C. Court of Appeal had ruled against him in a similar dispute with the B.C. College of Teachers on June 13, 2005.

Juliet O’Neill [Jan. 16, 2006] Justice Lynn Ratushny of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario ordered the disclosure of more government documents to shed more light on the motive for the RCMP raids on the home and office of Juliet O’Neill, a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen. On May 27, 2005, Ratushny ordered the RCMP and the attorney general to disclose all such documents. But when the government provided 252 pages of documents, O’Neill’s lawyers found that dozens of pages were heavily or partially edited. O’Neill’s lawyers requested full disclosure again on Dec. 9, 2005. The Citizen is challenging the constitutionality of the search warrants that the RCMP used to raid O’Neill’s home and office on Jan. 21, 2004.[18]

Bishop Jim Njegovan [Oct. 24, 2005] Bishop Jim Njegovan, the Anglican bishop of Brandon, Manitoba, banned the distribution of The Anglican Planet to parishes throughout his diocese, the CBC reported. Njegovan declared that the orthodox monthly newspaper was “sowing the seeds of distrust and disdain within the church, and that the publishers have no respect for those in authority over them.” The Anglican Planet, which was launched in 2004, competes against the church’s official and more liberal publication, The Anglican Journal.

The London Free Press [June 29, 2005] The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a dispute between The London Free Press and Ontario police over access to information in search warrants. The court unanimously declared that the Crown and the police cannot arbitrarily seal search warrants. If the authorities want to seal a search warrant during a police investigation, they must persuade a judge that the disclosure of information in the warrant would impair the administration of justice. The ruling ends a two-year-old dispute over access to information in the search warrants used to investigate a meat packing company.[19] News organizations hailed the decision as a victory for the open administration of justice and freedom of the press.

SCHOOLS

Deborah Ellis [February–March 2006] Throughout most of February and March, a dispute occurred in Ontario over the inclusion of a children’s non-fiction book about the Middle East in a voluntary children’s reading program in public schools. Ontarians in several school districts debated whether children in Grades 4–6 registered in the Silver Birch program should be able to read Three Wishes: Palestinian and Israeli Children Speak by Deborah Ellis.[20] The Silver Birch program is sponsored by the Ontario Library Association (OLA); Three Wishes records Israeli and Palestinian children’s thoughts about guns, soldiers, ethnic conflict and suicide bombings. On Feb. 8, 2006, in a letter to the OLA, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) listed 17 passages in the book that its members thought would mislead students about the conflict. The CJC then lobbied school boards to drop the book from the Silver Birch program. By Mar. 15, 2006, at least five school boards had set restrictions on the book.

• The District School Board of Niagara encouraged librarians to steer students in Grades 4–6 away from Three Wishes and to tell parents that their children had asked for the book.


• The Greater Essex County District School Board restricted access to the book to students in Grade 7 or higher.


• The Toronto District School Board restricted access to the book to students in Grade 7 or higher and withdrew the book from school library shelves.


• The York Regional District School Board withdrew Three Wishes from the Silver Birch program.[21]


• The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board refused to stock the book and refused to provide copies to students who asked for it while officials reviewed the book.

Numerous advocates for children’s freedom to read expressed their opposition in letters to school trustees and in articles published in the news media. The Toronto District School Board and the York Regional District School Board stoutly resisted pressure to change their decisions. But most school boards in Ontario retained Three Wishes in their libraries for students of all ages.

Action: On Mar. 3 and 16, 2006, PEN Canada released two different statements that criticized the Toronto District School Board’s decision to restrict access to Three Wishes. On Mar. 16, the BPC’s Freedom of Expression Committee posted “Statement on Three Wishes: Palestinian and Israeli Children Speak on its Web site. On Mar. 20, 2006, numerous organizations organized a press conference in Toronto to oppose the Toronto District School Board’s decision.[22] About 100 journalists and others attended the conference. On Apr. 5, 2006, Ron Brown of The Writers’ Union of Canada spoke at a meeting of the Toronto District School Board and tried unsuccessfully to reverse the trustees’ decision to restrict access to the book.

Sleiman El-Merhebi [Jan. 25, 2006] The National Parole Board set the parole conditions for Sleiman El-Merhebi, the young man who firebombed the school library of the United Talmud Torahs of Montreal in April 2004. The board said that El-Merhebi must not associate with criminals and “persons recognized by authorities as being implicated in activist movements.” El-Merhebi was convicted of arson on Jan. 18, 2005, and sentenced to two years in prison. He is being released this month (May 2006) after having served two thirds of his prison term.

Surrey’s School Trustees [Sept. 22, 2005] In B.C., a spokesman for Surrey’s school trustees denied that they had aborted the production of a high-school play because of its homosexual theme. Doug Strachan said that the school board stopped theatre students at Elgin Park Secondary School from performing The Laramie Project because the play’s sex, profanity and violence were unsuitable for children in the audience. The Laramie Project portrays the murder of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old homosexual man, in Wyoming in 1998. The decision to cancel the play had prompted charges from the playwright, Moises Kaufman, and others that Surrey’s school trustees were averse to teaching tolerance for the homosexual minority.[23]

WEB PUBLISHING

Alexan Kulbashian and James Richardson [Mar. 10, 2006] The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that two men—Alexan Kulbashian of Toronto and James Richardson of London, Ontario—spread hatred against minorities on a Web site. The tribunal then ordered the two men to cease their hatemongering and levied penalties totalling $13,000.[24] Richardson had posted jokes about the Holocaust and songs about blacks, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs on www.tri-cityskins.com; Kulbashian’s firm, Affordable Space.com, had hosted the Web site. The tribunal’s decision could be the first in Canada that found a Web-hosting service liable for the promotion of hateful messages.

Cyberlibel [Mar. 4, 2006] The Canadian Press reported an increase in the number of “cyberlibel” lawsuits in Canada. More Canadians who post critical, satirical or derogatory remarks on Web sites, Web logs or electronic bulletin boards face libel suits from offended parties than in the past. Recent targets of these libel suits include

• Sarah Dawe, a tenant in Kingston, Ontario, who criticized her landlord on a Web log and who faced eviction as a result;


• Dan Christie, a train driver in Port Hope, Ontario, who satirized his employer, Via Rail, on Frank’s Web site in 2004;


• a stay-at-home mother in Waterloo, Ontario, who posted photographs of what she said were unsafe construction practices at a nearby work site; and


• a mathematics professor in Saskatchewan who skewered his colleagues on a Web site that encouraged students to rate their professors and who was fired as a result.

The news story, entitled “‘Cyberlibel’ Cases Mount with Rising Popularity of Blogs,” suggested that Canadians who were unfamiliar with libel law were more likely to unknowingly break the law. The story, however, did not provide statistics to verify the increase in lawsuits.

Peter Mosier [Dec. 19, 2005] In Toronto, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Peter Mosier resolved their dispute over Mosier’s Web site, Quotes.Watchtower.ca. Mosier, an ex-member of the church, agreed to take down his Web site which reprinted unusual and sometimes embarrassing quotations and images from decades-old copies of The Watchtower. (Quotes.Watchtower.ca did not, however, editorialize, criticize or satirize.) The church had alleged that the Web site violated its copyright and trademark rights and had threatened to sue Mosier for $100,000. Mosier agreed to turn over to the church all passwords and domain names associated with the Web site, destroy all his copies of the Watchtower Library on CD-ROM and never again create Web sites about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.[25] The parties resolved their dispute out of court.

Tomasz Winnicki [Dec. 13, 2005] In Toronto, the final day of Tomasz Winnicki’s eight-day hearing before a human rights tribunal concluded. Winnicki, a white supremacist and resident of London, Ontario, was accused of violating the Canadian Human Rights Act by posting negative messages about Jews, blacks and others on a Web site. Neither Winnicki’s lawyer, Chi-Kun Shi, nor the lawyer who filed the complaint, Richard Warman, contested that Winnicki posted the messages. Instead, the debate focused on whether the tribunal should limit Winnicki’s freedom of expression. Karen Jensen, the tribunal’s chair, is expected to rule on the dispute in 2006.

[Oct. 6, 2005] For the first time in Canadian history, a federal court ruled that a white supremacist may not post hateful messages on the Internet, reported The London Free Press. The Federal Court of Canada said that Tomasz Winnicki may not post his anti-black, anti-Indian and anti-Jewish messages on the Internet. The injunction prohibits Winnicki from posting his messages even before they have been found illegal by a human rights commission. The Federal Court of Canada did not release reasons for its ruling.

Michel Chossudovsky [August 2005] Two Canadian Jewish organizations complained to the University of Ottawa about the Web site of Professor Michel Chossudovsky. B’nai Brith Canada and the Jewish Students’ Association said that www.globalresearch.ca contained Web links to sites that contained “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.” But James Turk, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of University Teachers, disavowed university responsibility because the Web site was not part of the university’s system. Chossudovsky subsequently removed the Web links.[26]

Rene Hamilton [July 29, 2005] The Supreme Court of Canada cleared Rene Hamilton of criminal wrongdoing for posting bomb-making instructions on the Internet. The court upheld the decisions of two lower courts in Alberta which found that Hamilton had sought to sell the instructions but had not counselled people to use the information to commit crimes.[27] The Supreme Court of Canada also said that current laws might be inadequate for policing the Internet.

Telus [July 22, 2005] Telus, the leading telecommunications company in western Canada, blocked access to 768 Web sites to prevent people from viewing two pro-labour Web sites one day after the Telecommunications Workers Union went on strike. To block access to www.voices-for-change.com and www.telusscabs.ca (which displayed photos of strikebreakers), Telus cut off access to a server in Florida. As a result, the firm’s one million subscribers could not see 766 unrelated Web sites. Affected sites included those of an engineering firm, a promoter of alternative medicine in Australia, a fundraiser for breast cancer research and a recycler of electronics parts in Colorado.

Contact Franklin Carter at 416-233-0994 or rfcarter@idirect.com for the sources of these stories.

The opinions expressed in Freedom of Expression Update do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Book and Periodical Council or its member associations.

© Richard Franklin Carter 2006