The Hate Speech Diversion
Author | Richard Moon |
Profession | Professor of law at the University of Windsor |
Pages | 279-302 |
|
chapter 10
THE HATE SPEECH DIVERSION
Richard Moon1
A. INTRODUCTION
I am surprised sometimes by the fervour with which some individuals
oppose all form s of hate speech regu lation. In a few cases, t he opposition
to hate speech restriction is simply a more palatable way of defending
hate speech — the message it carries. Hate mongers have found it stra-
tegically useful to present themselves as defenders of free speech. The
shift f rom advocate of hate to defender of free speech ts well with t he
hate monger’s self-understa nding as a vic tim of state oppression a nd a de-
fender of Western values aga inst multicultu ralism. More often, thoug h,
the opposition to hate speech regulation has a principled basis. There
are many comm itted civil lib ertarian s who regard hate speech as o dious
but are nevert heless prepared to defend the right of ot hers to engage in
it. Their opposition to the restriction of hate speech rests on a commit-
ment to individu al liberty and a concern a bout the reach of state power.
While I th ink the “civi l libertar ian” position is mist aken, it is not without
merit. What is p erplexing though i s the extraordin ary energy th at these
advocates of free speech put into the ght against hate speech regula-
tion. They seem convinced that the integrity of the free speech edice
depends on holding t he line here. Yet they seem indierent to t he more
signica nt ways in which freedom of ex pression is being eroded in West-
ern democracies. W hether by design or not, the obsessive opposit ion to
1 Richard Moon i s a professor of law at the Unive rsity of Windsor. Th is chap-
ter draws on Ric hard Moon, “The At tack on Human Rig hts Commissions
and the Decl ine of Public Disco urse” (2010) 73 Sask L Rev 93 [Moon].
|
richard moon
hate speech reg ulation diverts ou r attention away from more fund amen-
tal free speech issues concerning the character and structure of public
discourse, a nd more particularly the dom ination of public discourse by
commercial mes sages and the adverti sing form. But, of course, t hese are
not issues that can be addressed by the courts, except in indirect ways,
and that may pa rtly explain t he lack of attention they rece ive.2
In recent years t he critics of hate speech regul ation in Canada have
focused on human rights code restrictions. Some critics are opposed
not to hate speech regulation per se but only to this form of restriction.
Their concern is that the human rights process is poorly suited to the
regulation of hate speech. I count myself among this group. Other crit-
ics are opposed to any for m of hate speech restrict ion and human rights
code regulation is simply the battleground on which they have chosen
to conduct their ght. But there is another dimension to the attack on
human rights code regulation of hate speech. Much of the recent criti-
cism of such regu lation seems designed to u ndermine the enti re human
rights sy stem. Critics such as Ezra Le vant and Mark Steyn have foc used
on hate speech reg ulation as the most vu lnerable part of that sys tem. In
their criticism of this regulation, they spend more time talking about
the “corruption” and “incompe tence” of human rights inst itutions than
about the value of free speech. The logic of t heir (unfounded) claims of
“corruption” is that t hese institutions have no leg itimate role and should
be abolished. The ir claims are rooted i n a more general liberta rian view
that state powe r is inherently oppressive a nd corrupt.
Let me add a caution here. I want to be careful about attributing a
clear politica l outlook to Levant, Steyn, a nd other critics. It often seem s
that they a re interested less in advanci ng a political agenda tha n in pro-
moting themselves.3 I say this not just because of their indierence to
2 For a discussion, see Ric hard Moon, The Cons titutional Protect ion of Freedom
of Expression (Toronto: Universit y of Toronto Press, 2000).
3 Levant and Steyn wer e each the subject of a hu man rights compla int. A
complaint wa s made to the Alber ta Human Rig hts Commission aga inst
Levant, a nd the Western Standard, follo wing his public ation of the “Danis h
Cartoon s.” Complaints agains t Steyn and Maclean’s magazine were m ade
to the Ontar io Human Right s Commission (Ontar io Commission), the BC
Human Rig hts Tribunal (BC Tribu nal), and the Cana dian Human R ights
Commission (CH RC), following publicat ion by Maclean’s of an excerpt from
Steyn’s book America Alo ne (Washington, DC: Re gnery Publis hing, 2006).
The complain t against Stey n was dismiss ed by the CHRC and did not g o
to adjudicat ion. The BC Tribunal d ismissed the compl aint followi ng a
hearing. T he province of Briti sh Columbia abolished it s human right s com-
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
