Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 776
Dafina Savic
View Dafina Savic Profile
Dafina Savic
2019-06-11 13:03
Thank you.
First and foremost, I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to present the far-too-often ignored human rights situation of Romani people across the world today, a people whose very existence remains threatened, a people whose human dignity is continuously denied today across the world, a people whose fight remains largely invisible, and on which I will attempt to shed light today through my presentation.
In the Romani language, when greeting people, we say
[Witness spoke in Romani]
[English]
This translates to “I greet you with good will.”
I'm really hopeful that my presence here today will give you the will to take action on the often invisible human rights situation of Roma, which remains largely ignored today across the globe.
Seven years ago I founded a not-for-profit organization called Romanipe, whose main mission is to defend human dignity against human rights violations that Romani people face across the world. Our organization was built on the principle of unity. In that regard, it has worked in collaboration with many groups of people with whom we share suffering and has built collaborations with many different groups who have been victims of genocide. In the spirit of standing in solidarity but also in action with those groups, we also want to acknowledge our solidarity with people who have presented before this committee, namely indigenous peoples as well as the people of Burundi and the Rohingya in Myanmar. We stand with them in solidarity.
Almost 75 years ago today, the remaining 2,998 Romani prisoners of the gypsy family camp in Auschwitz-Birkenau were murdered en masse by the Nazis and their collaborators. According to the latest estimates, at least half a million Roma were killed by Nazis and their collaborators during the Second World War. Unfortunately, this history remains largely ignored, unknown and untaught globally.
Our organization has been fighting for the past eight years for the Canadian government to officially recognize the Romani genocide. On August 2 of last year the Canadian government, via Minister Freeland and Minister Rodriguez, acknowledged the commitment of the government to recognize the Romani genocide. Today we are still waiting for an official act of Parliament to be adopted so that recognition can officially be granted.
Recognition of the Romani genocide is highly important since the human rights situation of Roma and the hatred and racism against Roma remain very normalized forms of racism today given that the history of the Romani people, specifically during the Second World War, remains largely unknown and unrecognized.
During the Second World War, rhetoric portraying Roma as criminals was used by Nazis and their collaborators to justify the mass murder of at least half a million Romani people. Across European countries today, unfortunately we see that rhetoric being repeated. In many European countries, physical walls have been built to separate Roma from non-Romani citizens. These walls are not at borders but have actually been built within cities to separate Roma from non-Romani citizens. In countries like Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Romani children are disproportionately placed in segregated schools without prior testing based on the idea that Roma are mentally inferior to non-Roma.
This segregation has been documented and condemned by many organizations, such as Amnesty International, the European Roma Rights Centre and many others, which have spoken out and actually called on those countries to take concrete measures to end the segregation of Romani children in those countries. Unfortunately, as reported recently by Amnesty International and many other organizations, the segregation of Roma is still present in almost all of those countries.
As recently as 2012, cases of forced sterilization of Romani women were also documented in countries like Hungary and Slovakia. Governments of those countries have actually acknowledged that this was the case, yet no measures have been taken to actually offer compensation to the women who were forcibly sterilized in those countries.
Just recently, in fact last year, in countries like Ukraine, despite the many warnings of organizations like Amnesty International of the violent attacks inflicted on Romani settlements in Ukraine, a young Romani man was actually killed by members of the far right on the basis of the idea that Roma need to be killed to eliminate so-called gypsy crime.
In Italy, the minister of the interior, Matteo Salvini, recently announced his intention to create a Roma census, a policy that is very reminiscent of the 1933 policies inflicted upon the Jewish population in Italy at the time. This policy gained wide public support and in fact has led to an increase in hate crime against the Romani population in Italy.
Just last year, after the violent killing of three young Romani girls, graffiti throughout Rome praising the deaths of those three girls was actually documented. In fact, some pictures show graffiti saying “three less Roma”. This was just last year.
This month, in fact, in Bulgaria, neo-Nazis have marched threatening Romani villages, chanting anti-Romani slogans and encouraging anti-Romani violence.
In France, a few months ago, as a result of a medieval stereotype, Roma were accused of stealing children. There have been many violent attacks that have left many Romani families, including children, hospitalized. These things were the results of fake news being spread via social media.
Our colleagues in France are part of the only organization that has spoken out against this. Due to their efforts, the government has actually taken action.
There are many, many, many countries. These things took place in just this past month. We're not talking about years ago. We are talking about a few weeks ago that Romani people were actually killed, including in Bulgaria, simply because they were Roma.
I would like to read some of the quotes from the ruling parties in those countries with those marches. “Whoever runs over a gypsy child is acting correctly if he gives no thought to stopping and steps hard on the accelerator.” This is a quote from a political columnist and a founding member of Hungary's governing Fidesz party. “Gypsies to the gas chambers.” “Set them all on fire.” “Bury them alive.” “Stab them in the back.” These were quotes from ethnic Czechs during a demonstration against Roma in the Czech Republic.
Between 2012 and today, we have seen what we call anti-Romani marches. Most of the time these have been organized by the far right but they have also been widely supported by everyday citizens. People march carrying signs with swastikas and often dress up as Hitler and chant anti-Romani slogans.
How has the world reacted to those situations? Unfortunately, it hasn't, because, as I mentioned before, one of the most normalized forms of racism today is actually the violence committed against Roma, which is unfortunately based on the belief that Roma are fundamentally criminals.
How has the Canadian government reacted to this? Unfortunately, in 2012 under the previous government, a lot of Roma were coming to Canada to seek asylum and seek protection from the rise of the neo-Nazi movement. This was just in 2012, when the far right reached its peak. Actually, in a village in Hungary, six Roma were killed, including a six-year-old boy, as a result of these attacks by the far right.
A large number of Roma came to Canada to seek asylum. The response of the government at the time was unfortunately to repeat that rhetoric of criminality, accusing Roma of being bogus refugees undeserving of Canadian protection.
Our organization has asked that you work to address these issues with every single minister since Jason Kenney was minister. He was in fact responsible for the introduction of Bill C-31, under which specific measures were taken to restrict the entrance of Romani asylum seekers, whereby billboards were actually placed in the villages, such as in Hungary, where Roma were known to come from, discouraging Roma asylum seekers from applying to Canada. The policy measures that were taken have proven to be efficient. According to the statistics, Roma acceptance decreased by 90% between 1998 and 2012.
Our organization has actually worked with many families who have been unjustly deported. We are in fact still working with a family that is to face deportation in the next two weeks because Bill C-31 is still in place, and the countries that I have mentioned, where Roma are perceived to be animals and are threatened with being killed, are considered safe by the Canadian government. One of the provisions that we suggested be made to Bill C-31 was that the criteria of what constitutes a safe country be revised and that there be a board of experts deciding under what criteria those countries are safe.
A new government came into place, and Minister Hussen was given the mandate. That was dropped from the mandate of the minister, so those countries are still considered to be safe.
Of course, there is an increase in the acceptance of Roma, especially those from Hungary, in light of the well-documented evidence of persecution of Roma in those countries, yet there are still consequences to that bill, which we have seen from our organization's point of view. In the past three months, we have worked at least on three cases of deportation of Romani families who came here around 2012. There are still consequences to the policies enacted by the Canadian government.
Just to give you a bit of the background of our organization, when we started the organization, our intention was actually to use Canada as a model for Europe, despite Canada having its own human rights issues, in terms of how Europe could do better. Unfortunately, the Canadian government led us to do the opposite of that, because Roma coming from those countries were actually facing discrimination in their countries and were sent back to situations of discrimination, which actually doubled the discrimination of the home countries.
On that, just to give you a concrete example, according to the 1951 refugee convention, which the Canadian government has ratified, a country cannot send people back to situations where they will face persecution, whereas in the case of the Roma, that is exactly what happened. We've worked with many families, especially Romani children, who knew that they were to be refused because of the high refusal rate of refugees whose education was not recognized in countries where they already face segregation. They were sent back to their countries, faced double discrimination and actually had to drop out of school.
I'll end on that note, but I just want to take 30 seconds to make some concrete recommendations, if I may.
Essentially, what we're asking the Canadian government for is to eliminate Bill C-31 or to at least appoint a board of experts to determine what constitutes a safe country; to work with European governments to address the ongoing human rights situation in those countries; and, to officially adopt an act of Parliament. I have drafted a bill that is ready to be presented. It simply needs to be presented by members of Parliament so that the Romani genocide can be recognized. I think the committee's very mission is to prevent future atrocities from happening. That really begins with recognition.
Thank you.
View Marwan Tabbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Besides this committee, I also sit on the citizenship and immigration committee. In recent years, there has been a large influx of migrants fleeing to better prosperity in Europe. Within the last 20 or 30 years, I would say, has the spike in discrimination and hate crimes towards the Roma people increased in Europe? Has this been a factor with other immigrants coming into the region and with eastern Europe having strict immigration policies and closing the doors on any new migrants? Has it increased the discrimination against the Roma people?
Dafina Savic
View Dafina Savic Profile
Dafina Savic
2019-06-11 13:45
That's always a difficult question, because I think it's been more documented in the past 20 years. There have actually been more actions to try to document it, but definitely, according to the latest Harvard University report, there was actually an increase in hate crimes against Roma in Italy from 2017 to 2018. With the rise of the far right across Europe, there has been a strong anti-Roma sentiment that's been promoted, and a lot of these parties have actually gained power on the basis of that anti-Roma rhetoric. We've seen this in Hungary, for example, and we've seen this in the Czech Republic. There have actually been more instances of violence. We've seen anti-Roma marches in villages not only in Hungary but also in the Czech Republic and in Bulgaria recently. Even in France, there weren't marches but there were attacks carried out by citizens.
I think the danger, in terms of anti-Roma hate speech, is that it is, unfortunately, not limited to the far right. We see it at the centre as well. We have seen it in France just recently, and we see everywhere that there is a strong normalization of anti-Roma hate speech.
Yes, definitely, there's been documentation of the increase. CERD, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which just reviewed Hungary, actually in its last report expressed its deep concern over the rise of anti-Roma hatred and violence.
View David Sweet Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Savic, in fact, since you're on that subject, the instance of hate against Roma in France has now eclipsed that in Hungary, hasn't it? It's become really bad. Is that correct?
Dafina Savic
View Dafina Savic Profile
Dafina Savic
2019-06-11 13:46
It's hard to beat Hungary, but definitely, in the past few weeks, we've seen, as I said, that, yes, there's definitely been a rise in anti-Roma sentiment.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much. I think we all share that sense that freedom of expression is very important and we need to balance what we call “hate speech”.
If it's okay with colleagues, I have one short question.
The definition of “lethal” that I find in the dictionary is “sufficient to cause death”. While I really appreciate this document that's been created for women candidates to encourage them to run and to show that Facebook cares about their safety, I turn to page 8 and I read what Facebook doesn't allow. It does not allow posting of content “about anyone, including a public figure, that contains” the following:
Any statements of intent to commit lethal violence, or
Any calls for action of lethal violence, or
Any statements advocating lethal violence
What that means, according to the dictionary, is“sufficient to cause death”. You could say, for example, “I believe that somebody should break both of Anthony Housefather's legs”. That wouldn't be lethal. According to this, it sounds like it would be permitted. I'm wondering why. Again, I believe it's very important. People should be able to say negative things about public figures, but when you're advocating that somebody should be hurt, physically hurt, why does that not stray across the line of Facebook's standards?
Kevin Chan
View Kevin Chan Profile
Kevin Chan
2019-06-06 9:41
No, I think our standard is.... Again, I can't speak to the definition of “lethal” or the use of the word in the document specifically, but we talk about “credible threats” of violence.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm suggesting that if the case isn't that you're only sticking to “lethal”, you might want to change the wording in this book.
Lindsay Shepherd
View Lindsay Shepherd Profile
Lindsay Shepherd
2019-06-04 9:02
Honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear today.
Earlier this year, I received a seven-day suspension from the social media website Twitter for violating its rules against hateful conduct. According to the Twitter rules, you may not promote violence against, threaten or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or serious disease.
What was in my tweet that supposedly promoted violence, threatened or harassed someone? My tweet referenced an individual whom I cannot name here today due to a publication ban in this country. This individual can only be referred to as JY. JY is an individual who has taken 14 female aestheticians to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal because they declined to perform waxing services on his male genitalia. There are also screenshots of Facebook messages between JY and others where it appears that he makes very predatory comments of wanting to help 10- to 12-year-old girls with their tampons in bathroom stalls.
In the tweet that got me suspended, I referred to JY as “a guy who creeps on young girls and vulnerable working women in the Vancouver area”. I posted some of the Facebook messages he has written about his plans to approach young girls in the female washrooms. Why was it deemed hateful conduct for me to write this tweet? It's because JY purports to be a male-to-female transgender person, so by alerting people to his troubling conduct, I got kicked off Twitter for seven days because what I wrote was seen as a transgression against his gender identity.
Prominent Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy was permanently banned from Twitter for misgendering the same individual, JY, whom I have just spoken about, and for tweeting, “men aren't women, though”. These tweets also fell under Twitter's hateful conduct policy. Murphy is now suing Twitter because, as a journalist, her livelihood is largely dependent on her online presence, and she is being denied an online presence and being denied the ability to participate in the public square, as online spaces are today's public square.
I am concerned about the potential return of legislation such as section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. What that legislation does is punish Canadians who, in exercising their right to peaceful, free expression, might offend a member of a protected, marginalized group. If someone with a marginalized identity experiences commentary they find offensive, they can claim the offence is an attack on their identity rather than being legitimate expression. Human rights tribunals become the tools by which those who speak their mind peacefully and non-violently are silenced.
Many other witnesses before this committee have discussed the need for a definition of hate, and many call for a need to draw the line between free speech and hate speech. As a graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University in 2017 and 2018, I woke up to how my peers and academic superiors understand hate. When the word got out that in the classroom where I was a teaching assistant I had played an excerpt from TVOntario's The Agenda with Steve Paikin, an excerpt that featured psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson discussing Bill C-16, compelled speech and gender pronouns, a Ph.D. student at my university said at a rally that I had played hate speech in the classroom and had violated the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Likewise, a professor at George Brown College, named Dr. Griffin Epstein, asserted in a letter to the Toronto Star that I had played “hate speech in the classroom”. These are just two examples.
Recently, Facebook has taken to banning white nationalists from their platform. If you poke around online, you'll see that tons of people call me a white nationalist and a white supremacist because I have offered criticisms of the practice of indigenous land acknowledgements and have cited the statistically backed-up fact that white Canadians are becoming a minority in Canada. An instructor at Wilfrid Laurier University, Dr. Christopher Stuart Taylor, used class time in his anthropology class to tell his students that I have neo-Nazi, white supremacist ideologies, which he followed by saying, “I shouldn't have said that; forget I said anything.”
I don't have a Facebook account, but if I did, would it ban me? How many people does it take to smear you as a white nationalist or white supremacist before you get banned from certain online spaces?
This committee has noted that underlying their study on online hate is a finding by Statistics Canada that reported a 47% increase in police-reported hate crimes between 2016 and 2017. However, this increase is principally from non-violent crimes. As the Statistics Canada website reads: “police-reported hate crime in Canada rose sharply in 2017, up 47% over the previous year, and largely the result of an increase in hate-related property crimes, such as graffiti and vandalism”.
Perhaps you caught this story in the news recently. A couple of months ago at Laurentian University in Sudbury a student found some candy on a cafeteria table arranged in the shape of a swastika. This swastika-shaped candy arrangement is being investigated by the university as an incident of hatred and intimidation. However, I do not think that one isolated incident of candy arranged in a swastika is enough evidence to indicate that anyone is trying to incite hatred, target or intimidate. This is an example of how the bar for what constitutes hate is too low.
I have had so many encounters with the hypersensitivity around what constitutes hate that I know bringing back section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act would be a mistake. It would cast too wide a net, and extremists who are already intent on causing real-world violence will go to the deeper and darker web to communicate, while individuals who shouldn't be caught up in online hate legislation will inevitably get caught up in it.
Thank you.
View Ralph Goodale Profile
Lib. (SK)
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your very kind remarks. They are much appreciated, and I'm glad to be back with the committee once again, this time, of course, presenting the 2019-20 main estimates for the public safety portfolio.
To help explain all of those numbers in more detail and to answer your questions today, I am pleased to be joined by Gina Wilson, the new deputy minister of Public Safety Canada. I believe this is her first appearance before this committee. She is no stranger, of course, in the Department of Public Safety, but she has been, for the last couple of years, the deputy minister in the Department for Women and Gender Equality, a department she presided over the creation of.
With the deputy minister today, we have Brian Brennan, deputy commissioner of the RCMP; David Vigneault, director of CSIS; John Ossowski, president of CBSA; Anne Kelly, commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada; and Anik Lapointe, chief financial officer for the Parole Board of Canada.
The top priority of any government, Mr. Chair, is to keep its citizens safe and secure, and I'm very proud of the tremendous work that is being done by these officials and the employees who work following their lead diligently to serve Canadians and protect them from all manner of public threats. The nature and severity of those threats continue to evolve and change over time and, as a government, we are committed to supporting the skilled men and women who work so hard to protect us by giving them the resources they need to ensure that they can respond. The estimates, of course, are the principal vehicle for doing that.
The main estimates for 2019-20 reflect that commitment to keep Canadians safe while safeguarding their rights and freedoms. You will note that, portfolio-wide, the total authorities requested this year would result in a net increase of $256.1 million for this fiscal year, or 2.7% more than last year's main estimates. Of course, some of the figures go up and some go down, but the net result is a 2.7% increase.
One key item is an investment of $135 million in fiscal year 2019-20 for the sustainability and modernization of Canada's border operations. The second is $42 million for Public Safety Canada, the RCMP and CBSA to take action against guns and gangs. Minister Blair will be speaking in much more detail about the work being done under these initiatives when he appears before the committee.
For my part today I will simply summarize several other funding matters affecting my department, Public Safety Canada, and all of the related agencies.
The department is estimating a net spending decrease of $246.8 million this fiscal year, 21.2% less than last year. That is due to a decrease of $410.7 million in funding levels that expired last year under the disaster financial assistance arrangements. There is another item coming later on whereby the number goes up for the future year. You have to offset those two in order to follow the flow of the cash. That rather significant drop in the funding for the department itself, 21.2%, is largely due to that change in the DFAA, for which the funding level expired in 2018-19.
There was also a decrease of some $79 million related to the completion of Canada's presidency of the G7 in the year 2018.
These decreases are partially offset by a number of funding increases, including a $25-million grant to Avalanche Canada to support its life-saving safety and awareness efforts; $14.9 million for infrastructure projects related to security in indigenous communities; $10.1 million in additional funding for the first nations policing program; and $3.3 million to address post-traumatic stress injuries affecting our skilled public safety personnel.
The main estimates also reflect measures announced a few weeks ago in budget 2019. For Public Safety Canada, that is, the department, these include $158.5 million to improve our ability to prepare for and respond to emergencies and natural disasters in Canada, including in indigenous communities, of which $155 million partially offsets that reduction in DFAA that I just referred to.
There's also $4.4 million to combat the truly heinous and growing crime of child sexual exploitation online.
There is $2 million for the security infrastructure program to continue to help communities at risk of hate-motivated crime to improve their security infrastructure.
There is $2 million to support efforts to assess and respond to economic-based national security threats, and there's $1.8 million to support a new cybersecurity framework to protect Canada's critical infrastructure, including in the finance, telecommunications, energy and transport sectors.
As you know, in the 2019 federal budget, we also announced $65 million as a one-time capital investment in the STARS air rescue system to acquire new emergency helicopters. That important investment does not appear in the 2019-20 main estimates because it was accounted for in the 2018-19 fiscal year, that is, before this past March 31.
Let me turn now to the 2019-20 main estimates for the other public safety portfolio organizations, other than the department itself.
I'll start with CBSA, which is seeking a total net increase this fiscal year of $316.9 million. That's 17.5% over the 2018-19 estimates. In addition to that large sustainability and modernization for border operations item that I previously mentioned, some other notable increases include $10.7 million to support activities related to the immigration levels plan that was announced for the three years 2018 to 2020. Those things include security screening, identity verification, the processing of permanent residents when they arrive at the border and so forth—all the responsibilities of CBSA.
There's an item for $10.3 million for the CBSA's postal modernization initiative, which is critically important at the border. There is $7.2 million to expand safe examination sites, increase intelligence and risk assessment capacity and enhance the detector dog program to give our officers the tools they need to combat Canada's ongoing opioid crisis.
There's also approximately $100 million for compensation and employee benefit plans related to collective bargaining agreements.
Budget 2019 investments affecting CBSA main estimates this year include a total of $381.8 million over five years to enhance the integrity of Canada's borders and the asylum system. While my colleague Minister Blair will provide more details on this, the CBSA would be receiving $106.3 million of that funding in this fiscal year.
Budget 2019 also includes $12.9 million to ensure that immigration and border officials have the resources to process a growing number of applications for Canadian visitor visas and work and study permits.
There is $5.6 million to increase the number of detector dogs deployed across the country in order to protect Canada's hog farmers and meat processors from the serious economic threat posed by African swine fever.
Also, there's $1.5 million to protect people from unscrupulous immigration consultants by improving oversight and strengthening compliance and enforcement measures.
I would also note that the government announced through the budget its intention to introduce the legislation necessary to expand the role of the RCMP's Civilian Review and Complaints Commission so it can also serve as an independent review body for CBSA. That proposed legislation, Bill C-98, was introduced in the House last month.
I will turn now to the RCMP. Its estimates for 2019-20 reflect a $9.2-million increase over last year's funding levels. The main factors contributing to that change include increases of $32.8 million to compensate members injured in the performance of their duties, $26.6 million for the initiative to ensure security and prosperity in the digital age, and $10.4 million for forensic toxicology in Canada's new drug-impaired driving regime.
The RCMP's main estimates also reflect an additional $123 million related to budget 2019, including $96.2 million to strengthen the RCMP's overall policing operations, and $3.3 million to ensure that air travellers and workers at airports are effectively screened on site. The increases in funding to the RCMP are offset by certain decreases in the 2019-20 main estimates, including $132 million related to the completion of Canada's G7 presidency in 2018 and $51.7 million related to sunsetting capital infrastructure projects.
I will now move to the Correctional Service of Canada. It is seeking an increase of $136 million, or 5.6%, over last year's estimates. The two main factors contributing to the change are a $32.5-million increase in the care and custody program, most of which, $27.6 million, is for employee compensation, and $95 million announced in budget 2019 to support CSC's custodial operations.
The Parole Board of Canada is estimating a decrease of approximately $700,000 in these main estimates or 1.6% less than the amount requested last year. That's due to one-time funding received last year to assist with negotiated salary adjustments. There is also, of course, information in the estimates about the Office of the Correctional Investigator, CSIS and other agencies that are part of my portfolio. I simply make the point that this is a very busy portfolio and the people who work within Public Safety Canada and all the related agencies carry a huge load of public responsibilities in the interests of public safety. They always put public safety first while at the same time ensuring that the rights and freedoms of Canadians are properly protected.
With that, Mr. Chair, my colleagues and I would be happy to try to answer your questions.
Kimberly Taplin
View Kimberly Taplin Profile
Kimberly Taplin
2019-05-30 9:12
Thank you very much.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for inviting me here to speak with you today.
I am Superintendent Kim Taplin, and as you know, I am the officer in charge of National Crime Prevention and Indigenous Policing Services.
The RCMP takes hate-motivated crimes and incidents very seriously and is committed to continuing to provide services that are focused on the safety of our communities.
Canadians are increasingly active online, with some using multiple communication devices and a wide variety of tools, such as instant messaging and various social media applications, which provide enormous benefits for Canadian society, but also present unintended opportunities to spread hatred.
A hate-motived crime, whether online or not, is any criminal offence motivated by the offender's hate, bias or prejudice towards a group or individual, based on colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and mental or physical disability. This would include a physical attack against someone because of their disability or sexual orientation, or hate-motivated vandalism, such as hate graffiti at a religious institution.
A hate or bias incident may be motivated by the same factors as those of a hate-motivated crime, but does not reach the threshold of being a criminal offence. Such incidents may include name-calling or racial insults.
If not addressed, you've heard here today that both hate-motivated crimes and incidents can be a warning sign and even a catalyst for more serious violence in communities. They also have negative impacts on communities' well-being and safety.
The RCMP proactively works with communities to identify, prioritize and solve problems. This collaborative approach is based on the philosophy that prevention is a core responsibility of policing, where decisions are evidence-based and responses should be community-led, police-supported, sustainable and flexible.
The RCMP has several consultative committees through which communities' interests become reflected in our work, such as the commissioner’s advisory committee on visible minorities, the commissioner's national indigenous advisory committee and the national youth advisory committee. The RCMP also participates in external committees, such as Public Safety Canada's cross-cultural round table on security, and Canada's anti-racism strategy, led by the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Statistics Canada estimates that two out of three victims of hate-motivated crime do not report to police. The RCMP is focused on increasing the reporting by building trust with community members. The RCMP also has a national operational policy to assist investigators dealing with hate-motivated crimes and is committed to monitoring threats to public safety. This includes intelligence gathering and ongoing assessment, in collaboration with law enforcement partners, to determine the severity of the threat level posed by any particular actor or group.
To properly investigate incidents of online hate, law enforcement must be able to work as effectively in the digital world as in the physical. Rapid technological advancements continue to underlie the complexity of police investigations, including online hate.
It is important to note that investigating hate-motivated crimes falls under the mandate of the local police of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the RCMP has deemed it a priority to recruit qualified applicants from a wide range of backgrounds to better reflect the diverse population of Canada. The RCMP also ensures that all employment policies, practices and standards are fully inclusive and provide all Canadians with equal and fair opportunities within the spirit of employment equity policies and legislation.
In support of our collective effort to counter hate-motivated crimes and incidents, I encourage all communities to become educated on, and speak out against, hate; to enhance situational awareness of related issues in their communities; to practise emergency procedures; to be vigilant; and to contribute to community resilience. The RCMP has been part of these efforts in many communities across Canada, and will continue to reach out with professionalism and compassion to enhance trust with the communities we serve.
I would be happy to respond to any of your questions.
Thank you.
Avi Benlolo
View Avi Benlolo Profile
Mr. Avi Benlolo
2019-05-28 9:17
Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for having us here today and for actually doing this. This is very important work that you're all doing.
I'd like to begin my statement by first telling you a little bit about our institution. We're an international human rights organization. We have a network of offices worldwide, monitoring and responding to anti-Semitism, fighting hate and discrimination and promoting human rights. The organization has status with the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE and many other notable global organizations. Additionally, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has won Academy Awards and developed museums. We are currently building a human rights museum in Jerusalem.
ln Canada, we have won the Canadian Race Relations Foundation's award for our tolerance training workshops on the Tour for Humanity and in the classroom. We educate about 50,000 students each year, including those in law enforcement, faith leaders and teachers.
The organization has been tracking online hate for more than two decades. Twenty years ago, online hate was primarily found on websites. They were fairly easy to track, document and, in some cases, bring down through the help of Internet service providers. In fact, we used to produce an annual report called “Digital Hate” in the early days.
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act allowed us to bring down several online hate sites simply by bringing them to the attention of the ISP. Our ability to sanction hate sites became limited when section 13 was repealed in 2013. We lost an invaluable tool that provided a red line for the public. If that tool was in existence today, it's unlikely that anti-Semitic websites based in Canada, like the Canadian Association for Free Expression or Your Ward News and others, would so easily find a home on Canadian servers.
The advent of social networking sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and the like introduced a tsunami of hate into the social sphere. According to one study, roughly 4.2 million anti-Semitic tweets were posted and reposted on Twitter between January 2017 and January 2018. Conversely, according to Statistics Canada's 2017 hate crime report, there were 364 police-reported cyber-hate crimes in Canada between 2010 and 2017. Of those, 14% were aimed at the Jewish community.
I'm telling you this because this number is actually really low. You'd be surprised hearing this number, but it's low. I think it's low, given this recent Leger Marketing poll that showed that 60% of Canadians report seeing hate speech on social media. That would mean something like 20 million Canadians have witnessed hate online.
Moreover, through our own polling, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center found that on average across the country, 15% of Canadians hold anti-Semitic attitudes. That represents about five million Canadians. That's kind of the low end of that threshold; in Quebec, that number surges to an incomprehensible 27%.
Social networking platforms must be held to account for allowing online hate to proliferate. We note that these platforms have begun banning white supremacist and extreme terror groups. This is certainly one step forward. However, since they are operating in Canada, we must demand that platforms conform to our Criminal Code, specifically section 318 on advocating genocide, subsection 319(1) on publicly inciting hatred, and subsection 319(2) on wilfully promoting hatred.
lt's possible that Canada requires a CRTC-like office with a mandate to regulate online content and specifically ensure that online hate is curtailed. Indeed, one CRTC mandate is to “protect” Canadians. The CRTC says, “We engage in activities that enhance the safety and interests of Canadians by promoting compliance with and enforcement of its regulations, including those relating to unsolicited communications.” It's in their mandate.
That appears to be consistent with our interest here to limit the proliferation of hate online in accordance with Canadian law.
The Christchurch Call to Action to eliminate terrorists' and violent extremists' content online is a positive step forward. However, it must be implemented by Canada with concrete tools. Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center recommends the following actions that could help stem the promulgation of hateful acts against all communities through online platforms.
One, reinstitute section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to make it illegal to utilize communications platforms to discriminate against a person and/or an identifiable group.
Two, the section should as well make platforms and service providers liable for ensuring they are not hosting hate websites and moderating their online social networking feeds. Fines should be imposed and criminal sanctions should be placed on violators.
Three, expand Statistics Canada's mandate to collect and share hate crime statistics from across the country. At the moment, Canadian policy-makers and organizations are mostly guessing. This is where I get back to those police numbers. We really are guessing at the extent of hate online and beyond. We need better information collected across the country to make better policy.
On that point, I held a hate crimes conference last fall and I invited Statistics Canada. It was the first time they attended a hate crimes conference with police units from across the country. I was shocked that this hadn't happened before.
Fourth is to improve police capacity and ability to track and respond to hate crime. Through our research, we discovered an inconsistency of hate crime units across the country. Some cities lack the resources to implement and deploy hate crime investigators, as you just heard. Last fall, we initiated the hate crimes conference. I'm repreating myself.
This country is lacking a best-practices model for policing hate crimes and understanding hate crimes and understanding the law around hate crimes and collecting and delivering that information to Stats Canada, which will in turn deliver that information to the policy-makers.
Number five is to improve communication between the provincial attorneys general as well as police when it comes to investigating and prosecuting hate crime and hate speech offenders. This will require additional training for prosectors and police officers so that victims of hate speech crime feel their needs are addressed.
We have specific examples that I can get into later about the mishandling in how the prosectors are working with the police and the disjointed communication between them in finding hate crime criminals and prosecuting them.
Number six is education. This is, for us institutionally, one of the most important elements. Education on responsible usage of social networking sites and websites is required now more than ever. We dedicate literally millions of dollars a year to deploying our educational programs to bring that to students. We have, for example, cyber-hate and cyber-bullying workshops, where we aim to educate students.
Even going to a website about the Holocaust is one example. How do you know which website is legitimate? How do you know which one is fake? Further education needs to happen in schools across the country so the students, the young people, the next generation will understand what hate speech and hate crime really are and be able to differentiate.
Finding a balance between protecting free speech and protecting victims of hate is essential. Our freedom and democracy must be protected. At the same time, we must recognize that there are victimized groups that need protection too, and leaving the issue to the marketplace will bring about unpredictable consequences.
Even The Globe and Mail admitted in an editorial last week that times have changed since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a law in 1992 that made it a crime to “spread false news”. The Globe says, “Much has changed since then. Mr. Zundel printed and handed out crude pamphlets”, whereas today the same hateful message can be viewed by millions of people at once and inspire violent action.
We know this. The recent terror attacks in New Zealand, Sri Lanka, San Diego, Pittsburgh, etc., must motivate government and civil society to take immediate action. Terrorism can be prevented with the right placement of instruments, instruments that include a combination of enhanced legal measures, advanced monitoring and prevention, increased resources for law enforcement and hate crime units, and broader educational programs that promote tolerance, compassion and good citizenship.
We hope the committee makes recommendations for immediate amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to end incitement of hatred on online platforms.
Thank you.
Dahabo Ahmed Omer
View Dahabo Ahmed Omer Profile
Dahabo Ahmed Omer
2019-05-28 10:13
Thank you. Good morning.
Please allow me to acknowledge that we are gathered here this morning on land held by the Algonquin people who are the original stewards of this territory, which they never ceded. As representatives of over one million Canadians of African descent, many of whom were displaced by the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism, the Federation of Black Canadians is of the belief that Canadians must continuously do such land acknowledgment as part of the national reconciliation with indigenous sisters and brothers.
Allow me to begin by thanking the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for inviting me to address you this morning. My name is Dahabo Ahmed Omer, and I'm the stakeholders' lead on the board of directors of the Federation of Black Canadians. I'm here to speak to you in favour of amending the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is to provide legislators, law enforcement and marginalized communities with more effective instruments and mechanisms to stem the explosion of hate crimes and terrorism.
As you're probably aware, there has been a horrendous spike of hate crimes in Canada. Stats Canada just recently released the latest report on police-reported hate crimes in Canada, which shows a 47% increase in reported hate crimes. Black Canadians not only constitute the group most targeted by hate crimes by race and ethnicity, but the recent increase in hate crimes has been largely, although not exclusively, a consequence of more hate crimes targeting people of African descent.
If you're a black Canadian and you happen to be a Muslim and a woman and a member of the LGBTQ+ community, there is an even greater risk of being targeted by hate crimes. This intersectionality of hate is poorly understood and is also a very important part of the equation. Based on the federal government's 2014 “General Social Survey: Canadians' Safety”, we now know that over two-thirds of people targeted by hate crimes do not report them to the police. The most often reported explanation for this is that they get a sense that if they do report the crime to the police, the report will either not be taken seriously or the accused will not be punished.
From a black Canadian perspective of communities suffering from over-policing, carding and other forms of racial profiling, that fear becomes even more heightened. Even right here in the nation's capital, there was recently confusion with the Ottawa Police Service over whether or not the municipality has an actual hate crime unit. This feeds into the perception of law enforcement's indifference.
It is important for the federation to stress that this explosion of hatred that has been described so far actually mirrors the proliferation online. CBC's Marketplace recently revealed a whopping 600% increase in hate speech by Canadians online. We also know that over 300 white supremacist groups are operating in Canada, using the web not only to promote hate and concoct deadly attacks but also to infiltrate our trusted public institutions.
It should therefore come as no surprise that a 2018 Angus Reid poll showed that 40% of Canadians feel that white supremacist attitudes are a cause of great concern.
Hate is currently undermining public safety for marginalized communities such as mine while also threatening national security. This is made clear by a recent report by the military police criminal intelligence section that reveals white supremacist infiltration of the Canadian Forces by paramilitary groups that use the web to recruit and spread hate.
With terrorist attacks on the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec; recent vandalization of black, Muslim, Jewish and Sikh places of worship; and the global context of coordination among white supremacist groups worldwide, more and more Canadians of all backgrounds believe that the time is now for Parliament to act more forcefully and deliberately against hate, which undermines public safety and transnational security.
Canadians expect their Parliament to take stronger action to prevent hate crimes that threaten public safety across the country.
The Federation of Black Canadians is aware that there is a tension between respecting freedom of expression, as protected under section 2(b) of the charter, and regulating hate speech online, as well as the prospect of technical solutions to reporting and monitoring hate speech or designating legitimate source and news sources, yet based on the lived experience of so many people across Canada who look like me, the federation believes that the lack of civil restrictions on dissemination of hate communicated over the Internet, the most prevalent and easily accessible mechanism of public communication, is a matter of grave concern.
The Canadian Human Rights Act stripped of section 13 is not a tool for the 21st century. When one considers that almost all Canadians under the age of 44 communicate online, that's why it's imperative that all political parties and independents come together in the spirit of consensus to restore section 13 of the act, which constitutes the only civil hate speech provision in Canada explicitly protecting Canadians from broadcast hate speech on the Internet.
The burden of proof required by section 319 of the Criminal Code is so high that, in and of itself, it leaves the most vulnerable populations, including black Canadians, subject to the proven harms associated with hate speech without providing a viable mechanism for recourse.
This becomes yet another systemic barrier to the inclusion, well-being and safety of black Canadians, among so many other groups targeted by hate. While the right to freely express oneself is fundamentally essential to a functional democracy—and trust me when I say this, because my country of origin is Somalia—the protection of the minority communities from the real harms associated with hate speech and online hate is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It is only when Canadians feel safe, protected and respected within our society that Canada can flourish and advance as a democracy.
Thank you.
Sukhpreet Sangha
View Sukhpreet Sangha Profile
Sukhpreet Sangha
2019-05-28 10:39
I'll be speaking about combatting online hate, especially through the lens of the criminal law.
Of course, we all understand that we must be expedient, bold and effective in the way in which Canada responds to the growth of online hate.
To that end, regarding the criminal law, the committee is aware and it has been mentioned earlier that the Criminal Code currently contains two main provisions that can be used to charge persons accused of committing online hate crimes: sections 318 and 319. While section 318 prohibits advocating genocide, section 319 more broadly prohibits public incitement of hatred and the wilful promotion of hatred and is thus the likelier charging section in cases of online hate crime. The use of section 318 is further limited by the fact that proceedings under it may not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Subsection 319(2) creates a hybrid offence that criminalizes:
Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group
The maximum punishment available, if proceeding by indictment, is two years of imprisonment.
However, it is troubling that the Attorney General's consent must also be obtained to institute proceedings under that section. As the popularity of using the Internet as a forum for spreading hate only continues to increase, Parliament should reconsider whether this requirement for the Attorney General's consent places undue limits on the prosecution of online hate crimes. Requiring this consent to proceed with online hate crime prosecutions creates an unnecessary additional barrier to these charges being pursued by legal authorities.
Alternatively, individuals committing certain types of online hate crimes can also be charged with more generic Criminal Code offences, as is sometimes done, under sections regarding uttering threats and criminal harassment, and the hate motivation of the crime can be considered an aggravating circumstance on sentencing under subparagraph 718.2(a)(i).
Another concern with the current usage of the code to address online hate crime is the often fraught relations between some members of racialized communities and the police. lt is more broadly acknowledged now that systemic racism is a significant problem within our criminal justice system, which creates an access-to-justice barrier for members of those same communities when they are subjected to hate crimes, when their main avenue for dealing with that is the police. lt can be reasonably difficult for racialized persons who have experienced being targeted by police through programs such as carding to then have to seek assistance regarding hate crimes from members of that same police force.
Further, the historical and ongoing overreliance of the criminal justice system on punishment through penalties such as imprisonment and fines also produces a deficiency when dealing with hate crimes, both online and off. Punitive sanctions, such as those traditionally meted out by the criminal justice system, do little to confront or change the attitudes and beliefs that motivate hate crimes. As such, a more meaningful remedy could lie in community-based programs that seek to address the motivators and the thinking that underlie hate crimes, in a genuine attempt at anti-racism and anti-oppression education.
Further, problems with prosecuting hate crimes through the criminal justice system are revealed by the fact that police solved just 28% of hate crime incidents in 2017, as shown by new Statistics Canada analysis, which I'm sure most members have seen. By comparison, among all Criminal Code violations, excluding those in traffic, 40% were solved by police in that same year, 2017. Hence, even when the hurdle of reporting to police is cleared by victims of hate crime, the chances of success are 12% lower than with other types of offences.
We'll make two recommendations regarding the criminal law.
First, as the popularity of using the Internet as a forum for spreading hate only continues to increase, Parliament should reconsider whether codifying requirements for the Attorney General's consent places undue limits on the prosecution of online hate crimes. Requiring this consent to proceed with online hate crime prosecutions creates an unnecessary additional barrier to these charges being pursued by legal authorities. I will note that this requirement for consent is also in section 320.1, which was raised earlier at this committee today.
The second recommendation is that the government should look at creating civil and community-based mechanisms to address online hate that do not engage the criminal justice system. In our position, the criminal law is not the most effective mechanism to address online hate. A non-criminal administrative mechanism could provide a more accessible alternative. Systemic racism within the criminal justice system makes it disproportionately ineffective for racialized communities.
I'll pass it back.
Jennifer Klinck
View Jennifer Klinck Profile
Jennifer Klinck
2019-05-16 8:47
Thank you. On behalf of Egale Canada, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today on this critical question of online governance.
Ensuring that there are meaningful protections against online hate and harassment, while also maintaining our commitment to the fundamental Canadian value of freedom of expression, is both difficult and of utmost importance. As part of its mission, Egale works to improve the lives of LGBTQ2SI people in Canada, by promoting human rights and inclusion through research, education, community engagement and public policy contributions.
I am the chair of Egale's legal issues committee, which is a made up of LGBTQ2SI lawyers from across Canada. I am also a partner at Power Law, with a practice focused on constitutional law. I am grateful for the assistance of other members of the legal issues committee in preparing these remarks, particularly Professor Samuel Singer, Daniel Girlando and Melissa McKay.
Online hate poses a significant threat and is therefore an issue of particular concern to the LGBTQ2SI community. According to a Statistics Canada report on police-reported hate crime in Canada for 2017, hate crimes in general and hate crimes targeting members of the LGBTQ2SI community in particular are on the rise.
Police-reported hate crimes targeting sexual orientation rose 16% in 2017, compared with 2016. Crimes motivated by hatred of sexual orientation accounted for 10% of hate crimes. Police-reported data on trans-targeted hate crimes is suspect, as nearly half of reported incidents—15—occurred in 2017 alone, likely corresponding to the 2017 addition of gender identity and expression to the Criminal Code. We do know, however, from Trans Pulse, that 20% of trans people in Ontario have been physically or sexually assaulted for being trans. We also know that many survey respondents did not report these assaults to police. In fact, 24% reported having been assaulted by police.
Further, a significant proportion—15%—of hate crimes that are also cybercrimes target members of LGBTQ2SI community. Of particular concern is that hate crimes targeting members of the LGBTA2SI community are marked by violence. Hate crimes targeting sexual orientation were more likely to be violent than non-violent. Victims of violent hate crimes targeting sexual orientation and aboriginal peoples were also most likely to have sustained injury. Similarly, hate crimes targeting trans or asexual people were very often violent, with 74% of incidents involving violence.
In short, online hate is of significant concern to the LGBTQ2SI community, because people are committing ever more acts of hate against us, and, all too often, those who hate us want to hurt and kill us.
The Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous decision in Whatcott, a case that specifically dealt with hate speech targeting homosexuals, and in which Egale intervened, succinctly summarized the real harms caused by hate speech. First, hate speech subjects individual members of the targeted group to humiliation and degradation, resulting in grave psychological and social consequences. Second, hate speech harms society at large, by increasing discord, and, even if only subtly and unconsciously, by convincing listeners of the inferiority of the targeted group.
The regulatory response to online hate should also take into account how certain types of speech are fundamentally at odds with the values that underlie freedom of expression, including the search for truth, and democratic participation in the marketplace of ideas.
As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in Whatcott:
a particularly insidious aspect of hate speech is that it acts to cut off any path of reply by the group under attack. It does this not only by attempting to marginalize the group so that their reply will be ignored: it also forces the group to argue for their basic humanity or social standing, as a precondition to participating in the deliberative aspects of our democracy.
This insight has considerable resonance for members of the LGBTQ2SI community, who have often been portrayed as morally depraved child abusers, as was the case with some of the flyers in Whatcott, or in debates concerning access by trans people to bathrooms corresponding to their lived gender.
Beyond online hate speech, other forms of targeted online harassment are also of vital concern for the LGBTQ2SI community. Today, I will focus on two examples that cause serious harm.
First, cyber-bullying poses a particular threat to LGBTQ2SI youth. According to a 2016 Statistics Canada report on cyber-bullying and cyberstalking among Internet users aged 15 to 29 in Canada, more than one-third of the young homosexual and bisexual population were cyber-bullied or cyberstalked, compared with 15% of the heterosexual population. Cyber-bullying and cyberstalking were also correlated with substantially higher rates of discrimination, as well as physical and sexual assault.
According to a 2015 a Canada-wide survey by UBC's Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre, 50% of older trans youth experienced cyber-bullying.
The effects of cyber-bullying on LGBTQ2SI youth are serious. A 2018 systematic literature review by Abreu and Kenny found that these included suicidal ideation and attempt, depression, lower self-esteem, physical aggression, body image issues, isolation and reduced academic performance.
Second, aggressive trolling of members of the trans community has become a serious problem. Media reports indicate a growing trend, with members of the trans community who engage in public discourse online being targeted by an overwhelming volume of transphobic messages on online platforms. This form of harassment is marked by both the volume and the vitriol of the material, which has included alt-right memes and Nazi propaganda.
Further, the practice of doxing, collecting personal information on a person’s legal identity or Internet activities and publishing it to hostile publics, exposes members of the trans community to specific harms, such as revealing their deadnames, and to broader discrimination.
Such practices chill free expression, as trans people avoid participating in public discourse out of fear of reprisal.
A Norwegian study released in March “found that those who participate in online debates and comment sections, are more likely to receive hate speech than those who don’t participate online to the same extent.”It also found that members of the LGBTQ community are more likely than others to withdraw from political debate as a result.
While online hate and harassment are issues of particular concern to the LGBTQ2SI community, restrictions on online speech can also disproportionately affect that community. We know from the Little Sisters saga, when Canadian border officials equated representations of homosexuality with prohibited obscenity, that the policing of restrictions on speech can wrongly discriminate against unpopular viewpoints and groups. We also know that the Internet has become an important part of helping LGBTQ2SI individuals find or construct their identities.
In short, the issues are complex, and the stakes are high. A federal government response is needed. That response should be informed by careful study and will almost certainly require action on many fronts.
At this stage, it is evident that better regulation of online platforms is needed, but we cannot simply transpose old ideas onto this new forum. Requiring content monitoring by online platforms may be appropriate. However, there is a need to balance making platforms responsible for content from which they profit and the risk of incentivizing sweeping censorship. Creative solutions should also be explored to prevent online platforms from using algorithms that magnify and direct users towards ever more hateful and extreme content.
Additionally, more can be done through public education and information campaigns to strengthen online media literacy; to ensure a better understanding of what amounts to hate and harassment, since inflammatory and wrong understandings fuel distrust of initiatives to promote tolerance and inclusion; and to ensure broad public knowledge of the historically devastating effects of hate.
Finally, in any government response, hateful speech directed towards members of the LGBTQ2SI community must not be treated less seriously than speech directed towards other groups.
Egale Canada therefore calls upon the federal government to take a broad approach to developing a robust toolkit to combat online hate and harassment.
Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 776 | Page: 1 of 52

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data