– 4 –
Document: 244991: 01
CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS vs
NORTH SHORE FREE PRESS doing business as NORTH SHORE NEWS
– AND –
DOUG COLLINS
SUBMISSIONS OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA PRESS COUNCIL
(INTERVENOR)
INDEX
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
OVERVIEW: THE LEGAL ARGUMENT OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA PRESS
COUNCIL 10
DETAILS OF THE LEGAL ARGUMENT OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA PRESS
COUNCIL 16
The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms 16
Section 7(1) Of The Human Rights Code Is An Unreasonable And
Unjustifiable Infringement Of The Free Speech Rights
Guaranteed
By The Charter 19
Section (7)1 Prohibits Any Expression Which Is “Likely to
Expose
A Person or Group or Class Of Persons To Hatred Or
Contempt”,
a Classic Definition Of “Defamation” 22
Section 7(1) Of The Human Rights Code Creates A Claim For
“Group Defamation” 23
This New Statutory Cause Of Action Is Not Reasonable 23
Section 7(1) Of The Human Rights Code Imposes Strict
Liability
On The Defendant 29
The Well-Established Defences In The Civil Law Or In The
Criminal Law
Are Missing From The Human Rights Code 37
A) Innocent Intent Is Not A Defence 37
B) Truth Is Not A Defence 41
C) Fair Comment On True Facts Is Not A Defence 44
D) Publication In The Public Interest And For The Public
Benefit Is Not A Defence 47
E) Genuine Artistic, Academic, Scientific Or Research
Purpose Is Not A Defence 50
F) Opinion Expressed In Good Faith On A Religious Subject
Is Not A Defence 52
G) Expression In Good Faith, Pointing Out For The Purpose Of
Removal, Matters Producing Or Tending To Produce Feelings Of
Hatred Is Not A Defence 52
H) Innocent Dissemination Is Not A Defence 53
I) Reports Of Public Meetings, Court Proceedings, And Other
Public Proceedings Are Not Privileged 56
Procedural Safeguards Are Missing 88
J) A Single Adjudicator Will Judge What Millions of British
Columbians
Are Entitled To Hear, Read Or View, (Subject To A Narrow
Possibility
Of Judicial Review. The Human Rights Code Does Not Permit A
Defendant To Be Tried By A Jury Drawn From The Community,
An Absolute Right Of The Defendant In A Civil Court Action88
K) The Defendant Has No Right To Appeal, “Judicial Review”,
Has Significant Limitations 89
L) The Human Rights Tribunal Does Not Enjoy The Constitutional
Independence And Tenure Prescribed For Superior Court Judges
95
M) The Human Rights Code Does Not Require The Complainant To
File Formal Pleadings To Submit To Examination For Discovery,
Or To Produce Documents Prior To Trial 101
N) The Human Rights Code Confers A Quasi-Police Jurisdiction On
The Human Rights Commission To Execute Warrants 103
O) The Human Rights Code Entitles The Government To Bring A
Complaint Of Group Defamation Even Where None Has Been Filed
By Anyone From The Group Allegedly Affected 103
P) The Human Rights Code Does Not Allow A Defendant To Recover
Any Portion Of The Legal Costs Involved In Defending A
Non-Meritorious Complaint 103
Q) The Human Rights Code Specifically Provides That The
Ordinary
Rules Of Evidence Which Are Designed To Ensure A Fair Hearing,
Will Not Apply To The Hearing Of Complaint Of Group Defamation
Do Not Apply To A Human Rights Hearing 103
The Human Rights Code Also Confers An Unwarranted
Jurisdiction On
A Provincial-Government Appointed Tribunal 103
R) The Tribunal Is Empowered To Enjoin Expression Relating To
Subjects Within The Jurisdiction Of The Federal Parliament103
S) There Is No Statutory Ceiling On The Damages Or Costs Which
May Be Awarded By The Tribunal 105
T) The Tribunal Is Empowered To Permanently Prohibit “Similar”
Expression With No Opportunity For Future Reconsideration106
Section 7(1) Of The Human Rights Code Is Not Demonstrably
Justifiable 106
Section 7(1) Of The Human Rights Code Is Unnecessary118
U) The Federal Criminal Code Has Created The Offence Of
Advocating Genocide In Section 318 118
V) The Federal Criminal Code Has Created The Offence Of Public
Incitement Of Hatred In Section 319(1) 118
W) The Federal Criminal Code Has Created The Offence Of Wilful
Promotion Of Hatred In Section 319(2) 119
X) The Federal Criminal Code Provides That A Sentencing Court
Must Take Into Account Whether An Offence Was Motivated By
Bias, Prejudice Or Hate In Section 718.2 120
Y) The Civil Rights Protection Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, C. 49
Creates A
Civil Cause Of Action For Libel Of A Class 120
Z) State-Sponsored, Church-Sponsored, Officially Sponsored
Racism
Is Non-Existent 121
AA) Privately-Sponsored Racism Is Virtually Non-Existent And Is
Stigmatized By The Community Including Most Journalists And
Other Writers 121
BB) There Is No Evidence Of A Surge, Or Even The Risk Of A
Surge, In Racist Incidents 121
CC) The Press Council Complaints Procedure Which Is Available To
The Public Is A Preferred Alternative, In A Free And Democratic
Society, To Government Censorship Of The News Media 131
DD) Censorship Is Inherently Undesirable 134
EE) The Alleged Harm Of Hate Speech Has Been Greatly Over-Stated
By The Government, And Is Not A Valid Basis For Restricting
Speech Which Is Not Criminal 142
CONCLUSION 153
Last-Modified: 1998/09/21
