Freedom of Expression UpdateSunday, January 24, 2010
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 (June 2008 to June 2009) BOOK PUBLISHING La Caisse dans tous ses états [May 15–19, 2009] On May 15, author Mario Pelletier published La Caisse dans tous ses états in Quebec. The book says that the former president and CEO of Canada’s top pension fund—Henri-Paul Rousseau of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec—devalued the fund’s assets in 2002 to improve financial results in later years. On May 19, the pension fund denied the allegation and demanded that Pelletier print a correction or a retraction. The firm noted that La Presse, a daily newspaper in Montreal, had published a similar allegation in 2006 but later published a retraction. Pelletier refused the pension fund’s demand. He said that his sources included high-level executives within the company. Carte Blanche—Pelletier’s publisher—kept copies of La Caisse dans tous ses états off store shelves between May 15 and 19, but then started selling the book. Shakedown [Mar. 24, 2009] McClelland & Stewart published Ezra Levant’s Shakedown: How Our Government Is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights. The book, which features a foreword by Mark Steyn, attacks the human rights commissions’ treatment of Canadians’ speech and press rights. Shakedown quickly became a national bestseller and was frequently reviewed. COURTS CanWest MediaWorks Publications [June 2009] In Vancouver, the dispute between CanWest MediaWorks Publications (CMP) and pro-Palestinian activists over the publication of a parody of The Vancouver Sun continued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. CMP continued to claim that the activists—Carel Moiseiwitsch and Gordon Murray—had violated the company’s intellectual property rights by producing and distributing a four page-parody of The Vancouver Sun in 2007. The activists continued to claim that they had merely exercised their free expression rights by satirizing the alleged pro-Israeli bias of the newspaper. The fake copies of The Vancouver Sun bore headlines such as “Study Shows Truth Biased Against Israel,” bylines such as Hy Pocrazy and a weather forecast of “occasional missile showers” in Palestine. Murray and Moiseiwitsch also satirized The Vancouver Sun’s motto; they changed “Seriously Westcoast since 1912” to “Seriously Zionist since 2001.”[1] On Mar. 5, 2009, Justice Elliott Myers upheld a ruling that had struck four paragraphs from Murray and Moiseiwitsch’s statement of defence. The paragraphs said that CMP controls most of the newspapers in the province, that CMP’s news coverage shows a bias in favour of Israel, that CMP’s senior directors and principal shareholders dictate such a bias and that CMP’s motive in filing a lawsuit against Murray and Moiseiwitsch is to prevent the spread of the opinions in the parody. Myers said that the defendants may not base future arguments on these paragraphs in court. On Feb. 26, 2009, Myers approved CMP’s new statement of claim. CMP dropped its lawsuit against Horizon Publications (the company that had printed the fake Vancouver Sun) and dropped allegations that Murray and Moiseiwitsch had committed the civil wrongs of conspiracy and injurious falsehood. Noir Canada [Mar. 5, 2009] In Montreal, author Alain Deneault and about 100 people met outside a courthouse to demand that Quebec’s government introduce legislation to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Deneault, co-author Delphine Abadie, co-author William Sacher and Les Éditions Écosociété face libel suits in Quebec and Ontario for publishing a book called Noir Canada: Pillage, corruption et criminalité en Afrique. Two large mining companies—Barrick Gold Corporation and Banro Corporation—say that the book contains libellous statements about their mining operations in Africa in the 1990s. Both firms are seeking millions of dollars in damages. Les Éditions Écosociété and the authors of Noir Canada say that the lawsuit is a SLAPP—an attempt to intimidate them and to stifle the publication of important information. The authors and the publisher say that their book is well researched and that they are entitled to express their views. In April 2008, Les Éditions Écosociété distributed 1,700 copies of Noir Canada. As a result of the lawsuit, Talonbooks of Vancouver indefinitely postponed plans to publish an English translation. Update: On June 3, 2009, Quebec’s government passed Bill 9. The new law allows a judge to toss out a lawsuit if the judge thinks it is a SLAPP. David Ahenakew [Feb. 23, 2009] In Saskatoon, a provincial court judge found David Ahenakew not guilty of wilfully promoting hatred against Jews. Ahenakew is a retired leader of the Assembly of First Nations. At a public event in 2002, Ahenakew tried to justify the Nazi massacre of Jews during World War II to a newspaper reporter. In 2005, Ahenakew was convicted in court for his anti-Semitic remarks, but in 2006 the judgment was set aside. On Feb. 23, 2009, Judge Wilfrid Tucker sharply criticized Ahenakew’s anti-Semitic rant as “revolting, disgusting and untrue.” But he also decided that Ahenakew did not intend to stir up hatred against Jews. “There is no indication that the accused, at the time of the interview, even considered the possibility that the statements he made to [the reporter] would cause hatred against the Jewish people to be promoted,” Tucker said. Douglas Quan and Danno Cusson [Feb. 17, 2009] In Ottawa, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments about the libel case called Douglas Quan et al. v. Danno Cusson. The court’s eventual ruling could have important consequences for libel law in Canada. The dispute between Quan and Cusson began in Ontario. On Sept. 25, 2001, the Ottawa Citizen published an article by Quan about Cusson, a provincial police officer who went to New York to help the rescue effort after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center had occurred. The article included negative comments by a New York State police officer about Cusson. Later, in Ontario, a jury found that the New York State police officer had libelled Cusson and that the Ottawa Citizen had broken the law by repeating the libel. The court awarded damages to Cusson, and the newspaper appealed the verdict. In 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision but also created a new defence against charges of libel: the public interest responsible journalism defence. The Ontario Court of Appeal said that a person’s reputation cannot override the public’s right to know the news as long as journalists can show that they tried to research and write their stories responsibly. The Supreme Court of Canada will decide whether this defence, which promises to liberalize press freedom, stands or falls. A coalition of media organizations—which includes the Book and Periodical Council—wants the court to rule in favour of the public interest responsible journalism defence. Terrence Cecil Tremaine [Nov. 20, 2008] In a federal court in Regina, Judge Judith Snider upheld a ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that found Terrence Cecil Tremaine guilty of posting racist commentary on a Web site. The court reviewed the tribunal’s decision in September 2008. The tribunal decided that Tremaine had violated the Canadian Human Rights Act and ordered Tremaine to pay a fine of $4,000. Tremaine previously lectured at the University of Saskatchewan. Rafe Mair [June 27, 2008] In WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Rafe Mair—an outspoken radio host in British Columbia—did not libel Kari Simpson, a Christian and social conservative activist, when he described her as a bigot during an on-air editorial in 1999. The court also entrenched and clarified the defence of fair comment in libel disputes. In particular, the court established a new series of tests to determine whether the “honest belief” aspect of the fair comment defence has been met in a case. To be regarded as an honest belief, a disputed comment
The court added that a comment that satisfies the test of honest belief still may be found defamatory if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was motivated by malice. In the late 1990s, Simpson publicly opposed the use of books with homosexual characters in them in the elementary grades in British Columbia’s public schools. During a radio broadcast on Oct. 25, 1999, Mair criticized Simpson for what he viewed as her bigotry toward gays and lesbians. Mair compared Simpson to Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members. EVENTS Massey College [May 6, 2009] Representatives from numerous organizations met at Massey College at the University of Toronto to discuss ways of defending and promoting freedom of expression in Canada. Many representatives met one another for the first time. The following people attended the conference:
Rogers chaired the meeting. The participants judged the meeting a success and agreed to meet again in the fall of 2009.[2] Ontario Bar Association [Mar. 10, 2009] In Toronto, the Ontario Bar Association hosted a panel discussion called “Hate Speech and Human Rights.” Four panellists discussed whether the human rights commissions should play a role in fighting hate speech in Canada. The panellists also discussed what the commissions’ role should be. The four panellists were Jamie Cameron, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University; Mark J. Freiman, a lawyer; Barbara Hall, the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission; and Richard J. Moon, a professor at the University of Windsor Law School.[3] They agreed that hate speech poses a threat to society, but they disagreed over the best ways to combat it. Action: Several representatives of the BPC attended the panel discussion: Anne McClelland, the executive director; Franklin Carter, the researcher and editor of the Freedom of Expression Committee; and Marian Hebb, a lawyer who sits on the Governing Board.[4] Freedom of Expression Committee [Feb. 25, 2009] In Toronto, the BPC’s Freedom of Expression Committee celebrated 25 years of Freedom to Read Week at a party at the Gladstone Hotel. Special guests included Derek Finkle, a journalist; Ken Setterington, a librarian; Janine Fuller, a bookseller; and Russell Smith, a fiction author and journalist. Early in the evening, Smith interviewed Finkle, Setterington and Fuller. Finkle talked about trying to maintain his journalistic independence by resisting Crown demands for his research on the Robert Baltovich–Elizabeth Bain murder case. Setterington talked about the attempted censorship of children’s books and young adult novels in public libraries. Fuller talked about the bureaucratic obstacles that she faces when her store—Little Sister’s Book and Art Emporium in Vancouver—tries to import gay and lesbian literature into Canada. Later, Ron Brown of the Writers’ Union of Canada announced that Nancy Fleming had posthumously won the union’s Freedom to Read Award. Fleming served as the BPC’s executive director from 1979 to 1999, and she helped launch the first Freedom to Read Week in 1984. She died in 2008. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS The CHRC [June 11, 2009] In a report to Parliament, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) said that it should continue to fight hateful expression on the Internet but also asked Parliament to reform the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). At present, section 13 of the CHRA prohibits the publication on the Internet of messages that are likely to expose identifiable groups of people to hatred or contempt. Tribunals of the CHRC have the authority to censor online hate propaganda and to fine hatemongers. But section 13 is controversial: some Canadians think it undermines the constitutional right to free expression. In its report, the CHRC asked for a statutory definition of hatred and contempt. The commission asked for the authority to award legal costs to respondents who face frivolous complaints. The CHRC asked for the repeal of its authority to impose fines. It also asked for a quicker way to dismiss cases that do not involve hateful expression. Both the CHRA and the Criminal Code (in sections 318–320) prohibit the dissemination of hate propaganda in Canada. Both serve useful and complementary roles in protecting Canadians from discrimination, the report said. “The Canadian Human Rights Act is remedial in nature and focuses on the removal of extreme hate messages,” said Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the CHRC. “On the other hand, the Criminal Code is the most severe mechanism and aims at punishing criminal intent.” The CHRC ignored the chief recommendation of Richard Moon, a law professor at the University of Windsor in Ontario. In 2008, Moon argued for the repeal of section 13. (See the entry for Richard Moon below.) Jim Pankiw [Mar. 6, 2009] In Saskatoon, a tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) dismissed complaints against Jim Pankiw, a former member of Parliament. The complaints alleged that Pankiw had mailed racist pamphlets to his constituents when he was an MP. The tribunal ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to the pamphlets that MPs periodically mail to their constituents. As a result, the tribunal was unable to consider whether the pamphlets (called “householders”) had “discriminated” against an identifiable group of people. The decision was appealed to the Federal Court of Canada. Jim Pankiw represented the riding of Saskatoon–Humboldt in Saskatchewan for more than seven years. He was elected in 1997 and re-elected in 2000. His career as an MP ended when he was defeated in the election of 2004. During his time as an MP, Pankiw mailed pamphlets to his constituents to keep them informed about political issues and his activities. Between 2002 and 2004, Pankiw’s office mailed pamphlets that examined aboriginal issues. Three different pamphlets called for an end to hiring quotas, court sentencing provisions, hunting and fishing privileges, and tax exemptions for aboriginal Canadians. The pamphlets also said that treaties with First Nations should not be valid in modern times. One pamphlet, which bore the words “Stop Indian Crime,” showed a photograph of Mohawk unrest in Oka, Que., in 1990. The photo’s caption described an aboriginal protester as a “terrorist.” Nine people filed complaints with the CHRC. The complainants said that the pamphlets discriminated against aboriginal Canadians. During a tribunal hearing in October 2008, Pankiw denied the discrimination charge and said that he believes in equality for all people. John Simpson [Feb. 21, 2009] In Vancouver, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a citizen’s complaint about the Koran. John Simpson said that some verses of the Muslim holy book encourage discrimination against Christians and Jews. After buying a copy of the Koran at a Chapters bookstore, Simpson filed a complaint under Section 7 of B.C.’s human rights code against the store’s parent company, Indigo Books and Music. Section 7 declares that a person may not publish any statement that is likely to expose a person or group to hatred or contempt because of religion. Barbara Humphreys, a member of the tribunal, said that Simpson did not explain how the Koran had had a negative effect on him. She dismissed the complaint after ruling that it would not further the purpose of the code. Stephen Harper [Jan. 8, 2009] Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that his government had no plans to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to prevent the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) from interfering with Canadians’ expression rights. Harper’s statement appeared in an interview with Kenneth Whyte in Maclean’s magazine. The CHRA prohibits the electronic transmission of “hateful” messages that are aimed at visible minorities. The CHRC investigates complaints about such messages, and tribunals of the CHRC hold quasi-judicial hearings. A few provincial human rights commissions and their tribunals also investigate complaints about “hateful” messages. Tribunals may order fines and gag orders if they decide that someone has transmitted a hateful message. In recent years, the CHRC and its tribunals have acted on complaints about anti-Semitic and white supremacist expression on Web sites. In addition, the provincial commissions and their tribunals have investigated editorial cartoons about fundamentalist Islam, right-wing punditry about Muslim immigration and religious criticism of homosexuality. In the minds of some Canadians, the definition of illegal expression seems to be expanding and the scope for provocative expression seems to be narrowing. In Maclean’s, the prime minister said: We’re certainly aware of the issue. . . . I think you’ll actually see there’s Marc Lebuis [Dec. 5, 2008] The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) informed Marc Lebuis that it would not initiate proceedings against Abou Hammaad Sulaiman al-Hayiti. Lebuis had complained to the CHRC that al-Hayiti had written hate propaganda. Lebuis maintains an anti-Islamist blog called Point de bascule in Quebec. Al-Hayiti is a Muslim cleric in Montreal and the author of L’Islam ou l’Intégrisme?À la lumière du Qor’an et de la Sounnah. The book is a work of fundamentalist religious commentary, and it is posted on a Web site. On Apr. 11, 2008, Lebuis complained that the book exposed identifiable groups of people—women, Christians, Jews, gays, lesbians and “infidels”—to hatred or contempt, and therefore violated the Canadian Human Rights Act. Later, Lebuis said that he wanted to see if the CHRC would censure al-Hayiti—a member of a religious minority—as it had censured other authors of group defamation in Canada. The CHRC declined to act. Writing for the commission, Stéphane Brisson said that the negative comments about infidels and “Western women” in the book were insufficiently specific to violate the law. In addition, the more specific but still negative remarks about Jews, Christians, gays and lesbians did “not seem to promote ‘hatred’ or ‘contempt’ according to the criteria set forth in the Taylor case” (an earlier, landmark hate-speech case). Brisson concluded that al-Hayiti had committed no offence. Richard Moon [Nov. 24, 2008] The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) released Richard Moon’s study of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to the public. Section 13 prohibits the publication on the Internet of messages that are likely to expose identifiable groups of people to hatred or contempt. Using section 13 to combat group defamation is impractical and compromises freedom of expression, Moon said. He recommended that Parliament repeal section 13 to strip the CHRC of its power to investigate and censor hateful or offensive messages. He also urged the government to consider alternative measures to combat group defamation. Moon did not argue for the repeal or amendment of the ban on hateful expression in Canada’s Criminal Code. He recommended that the job of fighting extremely hateful expression—such as the advocacy of violence against an identifiable group of people—be left to the police and the courts. Moon is a professor of law at the University of Windsor. In 2001, he published a book called The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression in Canada. Conservative Party of Canada [Nov. 15, 2008] In Winnipeg, more than 2,000 delegates at the federal Conservative party’s policy convention voted almost unanimously to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Laurie Hawn, the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, supported the resolution. “We already have hate laws,” he said. The human rights tribunals “punish individuals for expressing legitimate—even if they’re controversial—views.” Among the delegates who voted for the resolution was federal Justice Minister Robert Nicholson. But Prime Minister Stephen Harper or his caucus were not legally bound to act on the resolution. Maclean’s [Oct. 10, 2008] In Vancouver, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) ruled that an article about Islam that had appeared in Maclean’s magazine almost two years earlier did not expose Muslims to hatred or contempt. On Oct. 23, 2006, Maclean’s published “The New World Order” by Mark Steyn.[5] The excerpt comes from Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone. The excerpt and the book argue that Europe is “too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia” because of “demographic decline, the unsustainability of the social democratic state and civilizational exhaustion.” On Nov. 30, 2007, the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filed complaints against Maclean’s with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) and the BCHRT. The CIC alleged that “The New World Order” is “flagrantly Islamophobic” and “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” In response, Maclean’s defended Steyn as an experienced journalist and “The New World Order” as fair comment on a political trend. Kenneth Whyte, the magazine’s editor in chief, expressed confidence that the human rights commissions would find no merit in the complaints. The BCHRT was the only human rights body in Canada to hold a public hearing, in the first week of June 2008. On June 27, 2008, the CHRC dismissed the CIC’s complaint. On Apr. 9, 2008, the OHRC also dismissed the CIC’s complaint because the commission lacked the authority to rule on publications. Action: On June 14, 2008, the BPC released its “Statement on Maclean’s, the Canadian Islamic Congress and Human Rights Tribunals.” Marc Lemire [Sept. 17, 2008] Lawyers for and against Marc Lemire—a Webmaster who hosts the right-wing Freedom-Site—finished submitting their closing remarks at a hearing of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Athanasios Hadjis, the tribunal’s adjudicator, reserved his decision. The tribunal must decide whether Lemire is responsible for the content of comments and jokes that were posted years ago on an electronic bulletin board. The postings mocked Jews, Italians, blacks, homosexuals and other groups. Lemire shut down the bulletin board on Jan. 1, 2004. In addition, Lemire is challenging the constitutionality of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 prohibits the promotion of hatred or contempt toward an identifiable group of people on the Internet. American Political Science Association [Aug. 25, 2008] In Boston, Mass., members of the American Political Science Association (APSA) began circulating a petition that asks fellow scholars to think carefully before they schedule the association’s annual conference in Toronto in 2009. Bradley Watson, a professor at St. Vincent College in Pennsylvania, warned that U.S. scholars visiting Toronto might run afoul of Canada’s human rights commissions if they addressed controversial issues in their remarks or papers. Scholars should be able to speak about “public policy concerning homosexuality or the character of and proper response to terrorist elements acting in the name of Islam, without fear of legal repercussions of any kind,” the petition said. The petition asked APSA to seek legal advice and consult with the Canadian government to ensure that U.S. scholars’ civil liberties will be protected. This year’s APSA conference is still scheduled for Sept. 3–6 in Toronto. Ezra Levant [Aug. 1, 2008] The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) dismissed a complaint filed by the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities (ECMC) against Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard. An employee of the commission decided that the Feb. 14, 2006, issue of the Western Standard did not incite hatred against Muslims. The magazine shows eight Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. They accompany a news story about Muslim protest and violence around the world. The eight cartoons, along with four others, originally appeared in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten on Sept. 30, 2005. The magazine immediately attracted the ire of Muslims in Alberta. Syed Soharwardy, the leader of the Supreme Islamic Council of Canada, accused Levant of promoting hatred against Muslims and complained to the AHRCC. (Soharwardy dropped his complaint on Feb. 12, 2008.) The ECMC filed a similar complaint. The AHRCC took about 900 days to investigate both complaints. Yasmeen Nizam, a lawyer and director of the ECMC, expressed disappointment with the commission’s dismissal of the ECMC’s complaint. Levant said that the cost to him and the magazine to fight the complaints was about $100,000. Catholic Insight [July 4, 2008] The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) dismissed a complaint filed by Rob Wells, a gay activist in Edmonton, against Catholic Insight magazine in Toronto. Wells said that Catholic Insight promotes hatred against gays and lesbians because the magazine opposes the advancement of homosexual rights in Canada. Alphonse de Valk, the magazine’s editor, said that Catholic Insight promotes the orthodox Roman Catholic teaching that homosexuality is a sin and opposes the “gay-rights agenda.” He denied that the magazine promotes hatred against gays and lesbians. An employee of the CHRC ruled that “the material is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation.” LEGISLATION Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act [May 14, 2009] In Saskatchewan, the government passed the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. The law prohibits convicted criminals from making money by recounting their crimes in books and other media. Don Morgan, Saskatchewan’s justice minister, introduced the legislation (as Bill 94) after he learned that ECW Press was planning to release a book by Colin Thatcher in 2009. Thatcher, a convicted murderer, spent 22 years in prison in Saskatchewan. He was paroled in 2006. His forthcoming book is entitled Final Appeal: Anatomy of a Frame. The law allows the provincial government to seize the profits from a criminal’s work and forward them to the victims of the crime or to a victims’ support fund. The first reading of Bill 94 occurred on May 6, 2009. It received royal assent eight days later, on May 14. It is unclear whether the law will be applied to Thatcher and his book. Saskatchewan is the fifth Canadian province to pass such a law. The other provinces are Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Bill C-10 [Oct. 7, 2008] During the federal election campaign, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to drop section 120(3) in Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act. Section 120(3) would have empowered the minister of Canadian Heritage to deny tax credits to films and television shows that the minister deemed “contrary to public policy.” Section 120(3) provoked outrage among Canadian filmmakers and other artists in the spring and summer of 2008. They said the Conservative government wanted to use the tax laws to censor films and television shows that the government didn’t like. But Josée Verner, the minister of Canadian Heritage, denied that she wanted censorship powers. NEWS AGENCIES (See the entries for CanWest MediaWorks Publications on page 1, Douglas Quan and Danno Cusson on page 3, Rafe Mair on page 4, Maclean’s on page 9, Ezra Levant on page 11, Catholic Insight on page 11 and the YU Free Press on page 13.) SCHOOLS Ruowen Wang [May 8, 2009] The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) rejected all 12 of a Chinese-Canadian author’s books for use in schools. Ruowen Wang said that school officials had unfairly banned her books; the TDSB said that the books were inappropriate because they contained “stereotypical imagery.” Several weeks earlier, Wang had shipped unsolicited copies of her self-published picture books to more than 400 schools in the Greater Toronto Area. The books focus on Chinese-Canadian children and families. Each package contained a note of introduction and a payment form. Librarians could buy the books; Wang promised to pick up all unwanted copies free of charge. The TDSB reacted critically to Wang’s sales approach. “We have to be really clear here. People can’t just be sending schools bunches of books,” said Catherine Parsonage, the board’s senior manager of business development. “A lot of authors want to sell their books to our schools, [but] we have an approval process here at the board for all materials that come in from external sources. They have to be sent to the appropriate curriculum leaders for review.” At Parsonage’s suggestion, Wang sent two copies of each book to the TDSB. Officials subsequently reviewed and rejected them all. Wang, who was unhappy with the decision, pointed out that some school libraries had already stocked her books on their shelves. “If you don’t like the manner in which the books have been sent, okay. However, this total rejection is [unfair],” Wang said. “If you’re going to ban all my books, I want . . . a fair trial for each one.” YU Free Press [April 2009] At Toronto’s York University, two students seized and threw out more than 1,000 copies of the March–April issue of a campus newspaper called the YU Free Press. The students—Aaron Rosenberg and Moe Levin—objected to two cartoons by Carlos Latuff that depicted Israelis as Nazis killing Palestinians in Gaza. Levin described the cartoons as anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli. Both Rosenberg and Levin were recorded on video as they disposed of the newspapers. Victoria Barnett, a spokesperson for the newspaper, said the cartoons were political but not anti-Semitic or illegal. Even if the cartoons made some people uncomfortable, she said, there were other ways of expressing disagreement with the YU Free Press’s editorial views than destroying its newspapers. In April, York University’s human rights office received at least three complaints about the YU Free Press. The Handmaid’s Tale [Feb. 18, 2009] An attempt to remove The Handmaid’s Tale—a dystopian novel by Margaret Atwood—from Toronto high schools failed when Gerry Connelly, the director of education in the Toronto District School Board, decided that the book was appropriate for students in Grade 11 and 12 English classes. Connelly was advised by a committee that had reviewed the book. In December 2008, Robert Edwards—the father of a boy in Lawrence Park Collegiate—complained about The Handmaid’s Tale. He said that the profane language in the novel, the scenes of sexual brutality and the anti-Christian theme probably violated the school board’s policy of promoting respect and tolerance. Edwards also said that if students repeated the novel’s profane language in school, they would be quite properly disciplined. Action: On Jan. 22, 2009, Franklin Carter of the BPC’s Freedom of Expression Committee appeared on Goldhawk Live to discuss the book challenge. The hour-long public affairs show was hosted by Dale Goldhawk and broadcast on cable television.[6] Extraordinary Evil [June 2008] The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) decided to use Barbara Coloroso’s Extraordinary Evil: A Brief History of Genocide in a new course about genocide for Grade 11 students. In late April 2008, a committee of the TDSB said that Extraordinary Evil should be dropped from a list of recommended books for the course. The book examines the mass murder of Armenians, Jews and Rwandans in the last century. The school board had received complaints and a petition from several Turkish-Canadian organizations. They opposed the use of Extraordinary Evil in schools because the book describes the Ottoman Turks’ mass murder of Armenians during World War I as “genocide.” THEATRE Seven Jewish Children [May 7, 2009] B’nai Brith Canada called upon Mayor David Miller of Toronto to stop readings of Seven Jewish Children at the Theatre Passe Muraille. The theatre is owned by the City of Toronto. Miller said that he lacked the legal authority to stop the performance. Seven Jewish Children is a 10-minute play written by British playwright Caryl Churchill. In the play, Jewish parents in seven different historical situations, beginning with Nazi-occupied Europe and ending with contemporary Israel, talk among themselves about how to explain political events to their daughters. No children appear in the play. The theme of Seven Jewish Children is that Jews have changed from being an oppressed people in Nazi-occupied Europe to being the oppressors of Palestinians in Gaza. Frank Dimant, the executive vice-president of B’nai Brith Canada, said: “The City of Toronto should not allow a venue that it funds to be the staging ground for a divisive play that promotes anti-Jewish hatred. As its name denotes, Seven Jewish Children does not even pretend to target Israel exclusively. It is clearly aimed at maligning Jews, depicting them as oppressors of Palestinians, blood-thirsty aggressors and child killers.” On the same day, Miller said: “We own the building, but we don’t determine what theatre groups in this city play, nor should we.” Other Canadians—such as B.H. Yael of the Ontario College of Art and Design, Chris Abraham of Crow’s Theatre and Andy Lehrer of Independent Jewish Voices—defended the play and the right of people to see it. Earlier in May 2009, CBC Radio’s Sunday Edition broadcast Seven Jewish Children and hosted a discussion about the play. Performances have also occurred in Montreal, Britain and Australia. 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 2009 [1] In 2001, Israel Asper—a supporter of Israel—acquired control of The Vancouver Sun. He died in 2003, but his children remain invested in the newspaper today. [2] For more information about this meeting, please see the draft minutes. They are recorded in a separate file. [3] In 2008, Moon wrote the Report to the Canadian Human Rights Commission Concerning Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet. The commission released the report to the public on Nov. 24. [4] John Degen, the former chair of the BPC’s Governing Board, also attended. [5] “The New World Order” is the title of the book excerpt in the paper issue of Maclean’s. The headline on the magazine’s cover is “Why the Future Belongs to Islam.” On Maclean’s Web site, the book excerpt’s title is “The Future Belongs to Islam.” [6] Goldhawk had two other guests on the show as well: Shelagh Paterson, the executive director of the Ontario Library Association, and Howard Goodman, a trustee on the Toronto District School Board.
Previous Posts
ArchivesFreedom to Read
|