OTTAWA -- Two free-speech crusaders appealed to a parliamentary committee on Monday to do its part to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its power to investigate complaints of online hate, alleging that it is bad law that has been "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation."
Blogger Ezra Levant and author Mark Steyn contend that if anyone in Canada should have the power to investigate online speech, it should be police - not human rights employees who have behaved like out-of-control thought police.
"I call on this Parliament to assert its oversight role and compel a full inquiry into the commission," said Steyn, who was the target of a hate speech complaint by Muslims two years ago for an excerpt published in Maclean's magazine from his book, America Alone.
The House of Commons justice committee is studying whether Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be repealed in light of persistent complaints that the commission's powers to probe Internet postings that are "likely to expose"a complainant to hate are too broad.
The commission itself has retreated from its own power to investigate and punish hate speech amid persistent debate over the issue.
Richard Moon, a free-speech expert hired by the commission to study its hate speech provisions, said in a report last year that the organization's mandate to probe Internet postings is too expansive and unworkable. He concluded that the business is best left to police to investigate the most vile cases.
A key issue is whether the commission's mandate in policing online hate is outdated and restricts free speech by the mushrooming numbers of bloggers and online publications.
The commission's power survived a Supreme Court of Canada challenge almost 20 years ago - but that was before the Internet mandate was added in 2001 in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States.
Mr. Steyn asserted that "psychologically disturbed"employees of the commission have been influenced by a former employee, Richard Warman, who has filed just about all of the complaints that the commission has received involving online hate in recent years.
"Section 13's underlying philosophy is incompatible with a free society. Its effect is entirely irrelevant to the Queen's peace, and its use by agents of the human rights commission has been corrupted and diseased beyond salvation," Steyn said.
"I hope this committee will be united in their revulsion," added Mr. Levant, a conservative blogger who has led a relentless campaign against the commission's power.
Mr. Moon, in his report, acknowledged "potential drawbacks" to relying exclusively on the Criminal Code for hate speech investigations, including a higher burden of proof and the lack of police and prosecutorial experience and resources in pursuing hate speech online.
The commission responded earlier this year in a report to Parliament that recommended that the commission be stripped of its power to impose fines. The commission can also levy financial penalties of up to $10,000 for violators.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has signalled that he supports repealing the section that permits Internet probes, voting in favour of a resolution passed last fall at a Conservative party police convention.
Under the Human Rights Act, the commission can dismiss complaints, send them for conciliation or refer them to a quasi-judicial body, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, for a hearing.
Since the 1977 adoption of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 17 Section 13 complaints went to a tribunal hearing. Of those, the tribunal has upheld 16, most of which were filed by Mr. Warman.