Is the Toronto Star now more freedom-loving than the government?

The Toronto Star is Canada's largest newspaper. It is also Canada's most liberal (and Liberal) newspaper of record, hard-wired by its own corporate bylaws to be left-wing. Which is why its call earlier this year to repeal section 13, the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was so important. The Star showed that this isn't a partisan issue, or an issue for only one side of the political spectrum. It's an issue for anyone who believes in the spectrum of ideas at all -- the right to disagree with each other.

The Star has done it again today, in a plain-spoken editorial.

I've got a question for my friends in the Conservative government. Two actually:

1. If the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, CBC, etc., etc., are all on side with repealing section 13, what's the political risk anymore? Other than a washed-up old Adscammer and a few lawyers who make their money off the censorship racket, is there anyone in the country who supports it? In fact, wouldn't repealing section 13 be a great way to reach out to the intellectual Left -- such as PEN Canada, EGALE, and other liberal groups -- and show that the government respects freedom of expression? Wouldn't that be an interesting way to counter charges made earlier this year about the government's approach to free expression in arts grants? In other words, isn't it clear by now that repealing section 13 is not only not dangerous, but it would be a positive political win?

2. More briefly: doesn't it feel weird to have the Toronto Star outflank a Conservative government on the issue of freedom? Does the government really want to be seen as the last people to wake up to the threat of section 13, and to do so reluctantly and in a miserly manner? Shake your head!

Here's the editorial in full:

Canada's Criminal Code is tough on hate speech, and rightly so. Those who incite or wilfully promote hatred against identifiable groups can spend two years in jail.

Beyond that, does society need to cast additional chills on freedom of speech and spirited public discourse, to combat hatred? In the Star's view, no.

But a controversial section of the Canadian Human Rights Act does just that. Section 13 makes it a "discriminatory practice" to communicate "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" via the Internet. That can be interpreted to cover defaming or stereotyping, a wider net than inciting hatred. Unlike the Criminal Code, there's no need to prove intent. And the penalty is serious. The federal rights tribunal can order the offending party to desist, to smarten up, and to pay as much as $30,000 in damages and penalties.

Given Criminal Code protections, this needlessly chills free speech.

That's why Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should heed the advice of Richard Moon. In a cogent report released this week, the University of Windsor law professor argues that Section 13 should be repealed. The report says the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) should let the courts police hate speech advocating violence. Moon is right.

The CHRC commissioned Moon's review after complaints were made against journalists Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant for allegedly exposing Muslims to contempt and hatred. Moon concludes that "less extreme forms of discriminatory expression" that stereotype or defame "although harmful, cannot simply be censored out of public discourse." That is an important perspective.

Moon also notes that Canada's press councils exist to field readers' complaints that publications fall short of the craft standards. The Star, a member of the Ontario Press Council, publishes decisions affecting us. But many publications do not belong to the councils. Moon believes they should. That too is sound advice.