|
|
October 31, 2003
Combating hate on Internet
Canada's experience may help delegates at a future UN meeting
in Tunis.
PAT JOHNSON SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN
Since the phenomenon of cyber-hate emerged as a serious social
problem with the advent of the Internet, governments and communities
have struggled over how to respond to the anarchic, seemingly ungovernable
nature of old prejudices being spread by new technologies.
Though the situation worldwide remains largely unchecked, Canada
seems to be coming to an entente over the way law-enforcement and
public censure can confront the problem. And the next few years
will help determine if Canada's example of combating hate on the
Internet might prove adaptable to the worldwide problem.
That was part of the message delivered by two Canadian experts in
the field who spoke Monday night at a local symposium. Leo Adler,
director of national affairs for the Canadian Friends of the Simon
Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies, and Richard Warman, an
Ottawa lawyer who specializes in Web-based hate, presented their
observations and research at a meeting organized by the local group
Canadian Anti-racism Education and Research Society (CAERS).
Though the Monday night meeting was disappointingly attended by
only about a dozen individuals, it was part of a series of similar
meetings in Victoria and Vancouver last weekend that reached larger
audiences.
Warman said Canadian judicial and quasi-judicial decisions are creating
precedent-setting parameters for what is and is not acceptable in
cyberspace – at least cyberspace that in any way falls under
Canadian jurisdiction.
Only three cases of cyber-based hate-mongering have made it through
the federal human rights process, but Warman said those cases will
eventually allow quicker and more effective ways to shut down hateful
and inciting Web sites. And, though criminal charges are possible
under hate laws, the action, so to speak, is currently taking place
on the human rights front.
There was a lengthy delay before a human rights decision came down
in the first case, which involved the notorious propagandist Ernst
Zundel. It took the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal about five years
to conclude, in the Zundel case, that the Internet falls under existing
federal laws governing telecommunications. The process was slowed
down through procedural manoeuvring by Zundel's lawyer, Doug Christie,
said Warman, but it was also slowed by the need to address the jurisdictional
issues. In the end, though, the Zundel decision provided, according
to Warman, a valuable precedent.
The second case, Warman noted, took about two years. Part of the
delay in that case resulted from waiting to see if the Zundel case
would provide applicable precedents, he said. Warman and others
were stunned that the third, and most recent case, was concluded
in a mere two months, which he sees as a sign that future cases
will be dealt with in more timely ways, now that precedents are
clearly outlined.
Warman and Adler introduced examples of the most insidious hate
material on the Web, including sites that explicitly call for the
annihilation of Jewish civilization "root and branch"
and which provide recipes for bombs and offer clear encouragement
to use the information, including specific buildings and places
of worship where the bombs could be most effective.
Warman noted that he is not dealing with sites that offer vague
dissent.
"It's not 'I don't like Bob,' " he said. "It has
to go much further than that." He cited a Web site that carried
the warning, "I'm coming for you, kike, and there will be hell
to pay."
The defence of free speech, though, inevitably rests on where the
line is drawn over what constitutes hate speech and who draws that
line. In 2005, a major international conference is to be held in
Tunis, Tunisia, under the guise of the United Nations, where all
member countries will address the issue and attempt to find common
definitions of what is acceptable and what constitutes unacceptable
comment.
Some in the Vancouver audience worried that the Tunis conference
could be highjacked just as the Durban conference, which the UN
convened to address human rights concerns, was turned into a burlesque
of hatred and prejudice. Warman acknowledged that is always a possibility,
but added it is the responsibility of individuals and governments
to press for a constructive, balanced approach that can result in
genuine, workable guidelines.
Though policing the Internet is generally perceived as akin to plugging
a dike with a finger, Warman and Adler share varying degrees of
optimism that it is not impossible.
The European Union is taking it very seriously, said Warman, and
if it reaches a point where universal guidelines are in place, it
may become possible to police the individuals responsible through
immigration processes. That is, while some small island or "rogue
state" might opt not prosecute under the guidelines, the hate-mongers
who seek refuge on that small island could be subject to arrest
when they attempt to enter countries that take Internet hate seriously.
An example of universal (or near-universal) agreement on standards
of behavior is embodied in the World Court, Warman said, a model
that could extend to Internet hate.
Before it reaches that point, however, it may be possible to shut
down hate-mongers via corporate pressures. Explaining that Internet
service providers (ISPs) have responsibility for the content their
subscribers post, an appeal to the ISP could be all it takes to
shut a site down. If that doesn't work, there is a next level –
the company that provides the gateway from the local ISP to the
Internet itself. These tend to be larger corporations, like Telus
in British Columbia, that have a better understanding of their legal
and moral responsibilities regarding hate laws than do the mom-and-pop
ISPs.
But cyber-sleuthing against hate is not without its personal risks,
Warman noted.
"The Human Rights Act makes it explicitly illegal to retaliate
or to attempt to retaliate against complainants or witnesses [in
a tribunal hearing]," said Warman. That doesn't mean retaliation
is easy to stop from happening though, as he found out.
Warman is a complainant in one of the three cases that has made
its way through the Human Rights Tribunal. When Warman first complained
to the Alabama-based ISP that hosted the Canadian-based hate site,
the ISP forwarded Warman's complaint directly to the hate-monger.
The hate-monger then proceeded, according to Warman, to virtually
stalk him for the next two years, sending e-mails to Warman's employers
and associates accusing him of pedophilia and murder. The Human
Rights Tribunal ordered the Web master to pay Warman $30,000 in
damages, though Warman has been unable to obtain a cent so far.
Still, Canadian law provides the Human Rights Tribunal with authority
to issue cease-and-desist orders that have the imprimateur of the
Federal Court of Canada, to levy fines up to $10,000 and to order
payments as damages to defamed individuals.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has made Internet hate a top priority,
and Adler described the work the Canadian office has done in identifying
hate sites originating in this country.
The Internet, Adler said, has fundamentally altered the very nature
of hate-mongering. Because pre-existing technologies like radio
and television were carefully and easily regulated, it was difficult
for extremist ideas to penetrate the mainstream body politic, forcing
hate-mongers to resort to paper handouts on a localized basis.
The Internet, on the other hand, has made it cheap and easy to reach
potential audiences of millions, which has globalized hate with
stunning speed. There are numerous sites that are blatantly hateful,
such as the Osama bin Laden-related site that allows Web surfers
control over the virtual cockpit of a plane crashing into the World
Trade Centre, many others that call for white supremacist revolutions
and still more that urge the elimination of entire peoples, most
frequently Muslims and Jews.
But there is an entire other phenomenon of deceptive, devious and
sophisticated sites aimed at the young and uninformed. A student
searching for information on immigration can find sites that appear
legitimate but discuss issues from wildly racist perspectives. A
Web site one might find while doing a paper on Martin Luther King
turns out, only after some exploration, to be a smear on the civil
rights leader and a justification for white racial supremacists.
One site offered Aryan ova from white women for would-be parents
with a preference. Another uses impressive production values to
add credibility to what is in fact an anti-Semitic take-off on a
Dr. Seuss classic: "One fish, two fish, red fish, Jewfish."
A teacher who does a search using the words "Teaching tolerance"
might find a professional-looking site that argues that white children
are victims of invidious, minority-inspired political correctness.
The perpetrator of a Haifa suicide bombing is depicted as a martyr
on another site, where her head, the only part of her body left
recognizable after the blast, is clearly visible in a photograph,
along with other scenes of the carnage, including red pools on the
floor, described as "blood of dirty Jews" and the comment
"They deserve worse."
For those with the stomach, such images are a mouse-click away.
Warman and Adler say Canada's response to the matter has some lessons
that could prove valuable as the world at large begins to take more
seriously the proliferation of hate material on the Internet.
"There is progress being made," said Adler.
"I'm happy with where the state of Canadian law is," concluded
Warman.
In the lead-up to the Tunis conference in two years, several preparatory
conferences will be held around the world to address cyberhate on
regional fronts. Canada's experience will inevitably rate a close
examination as delegates seek guidance.
Pat Johnson is a native Vancouverite, a journalist and
commentator.
^TOP
|
|
