![]() |
Civil Rights Protection Act 1981 The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is in complete sympathy with the objective of encouraging and supporting minority groups in the face of racist propaganda. So we understand well why the B.C. Government's Civil Rights Protection Act (Bill 32) was so widely applauded by the press and the public. However, we have serious reservations both about this Act and, more generally, about attempts to combat racism by striking at racist propaganda. In the first place, this Act is likely to be ineffective in dealing with propaganda. Hate literature per se is not outlawed by the Act. Rather, "conduct or communication" is outlawed if its purpose is "interference with the civil rights" of someone by "promoting (a) hatred or contempt... or (b) the superiority or inferiority of a person or class of persons... on the basis of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin" (emphasis ours). It is not clear exactly what this means. The key terms, emphasized above, are not defined and some of them are open to widely varying interpretations. This vagueness and ambiguity will make it extremely difficult to prove that hate literature has been issued with the prohibited purpose. Such vagueness may even invalidate the statute are a whole. We expect, therefore, that few, if any, cases will be successfully prosecuted under this Act. While it is unlikely, because of well established policies of judicial interpretation, that the courts will correct the draftsmanship and close the holes in the legislation, such judicial action remains a possibility. Even if this occurred, however, racist propaganda could not be halted by means of the Act, for the propagandists would merely go underground, issuing their contemptible material anonymously. At the same time, judicial (or further legislative) action to make the Act less ambiguous and therefore a more successful prosecutorial tool, could quite conceivably open the way for dangerous interference with legitimate activities and the undermining of freedom of expression. Here are some examples of cases in which freedom of expression could be infringed:
The BCCLA believes that racism must be combatted. It is our position that racism cannot effectively be combatted, however, by poorly drafted and vague legislation, nor by legislation that limits comment in a free and democratic society. Such legislation will not eliminate racism, and the propaganda will continue to line the gutters. Nevertheless, there are measure that can be taken, and that must be taken to eliminate the problems that allow racism to take root, and to help create a situation where racist propaganda has no chance to survive. These measures require determination, commitment of financial resources, and a sustained effort over the years by persons and groups of all racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.
|