The Demise of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: Reappraising the 'Battle for Free Speech'

In 2013, Bill C-304 repealed Section 13 (s.13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.Although the law used broad language, it had not garnered much attention until a concerted campaign sought its repeal.This thesis argues that the key to understanding s. 13's demise is the way in which the hate speech backlash exploited the growing ideological belief that Islam is antagonistic to, if not incompatible with, democracy.This is evidenced by the fringe bloggers that coalesced around a conspiratorial theory of 'Eurabia' to turn s. 13 into a national debate.Yet, the debate changed significantly once in the mainstream to reflect a concern for free speech based upon manufactured and negative perceptions of Muslim hate speech complainants.Consensus among major Canadian newspapers is an indication of how Canadian identity was (re)constructed as essentially Western and against Muslim Others who were seen as parasitic upon the tolerant excesses of liberalism. INTRODUCTION: REASSESSING THE 'BATTLE FOR FREE SPEECH'On June 26 th , 2013, Conservative MP Brian Storseth's Private Member's Bill C-304 repealed Section 13 (s.13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), the seemingly controversial piece of legislation that had attracted heightened public scrutiny in recent years.Section 13 was part of Canada's non-penal human rights code that sought to curb the expression of hatred via telecommunications, and, although it used broad language -for example, to proscribe communication that was 'likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt' -the law had not garnered much attention until a concerted campaign sought its repeal.This backlash arguably began in 2006, when two conservative Canadian pundits, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, published material that was allegedly Islamophobic.The former republished the infamous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad 1 in the Western Standard and the latter had excerpts of his book America Alone (which problematizes the birth rates of Muslims in the developed world) published in the pages of Maclean's magazine.Both Maclean's (Rogers Publishing) and Levant were then the subjects of formal human rights complaints. 2 Both cases became 1 Originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September of 2005, the cartoons mockingly portrayed Muhammad in an attempt to critique the alleged insulation of Islam from public criticism.Aniconic thought is present in many Muslim traditions and thus the visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammad was seen as an affront.The incident led to riots in many Muslim majority countries and was considered an example of growing antagonism between the 'West' and 'Islam'.For a detailed treatment, see: Klausen, Jytte.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.