Ontario Court Judge clears young defendant of serious criminal charges.
KITCHENER-WATERLOO: A young man who faced criminal charges for inciting hatred after posting flyers at his high school has been acquitted following a two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The defence, which was funded by The Democracy Fund (TDF), turned on whether a video linked by the flyer incited hatred against transgendered persons.
The defendant, an 18-year-old student, was charged after placing posters around his school that contained a QR code linking to a video warning transgender individuals about the risks of gender reassignment surgery. The case was taken up by TDF. The defence argued that, while the video was graphic and controversial, it did not meet the legal threshold for hate speech.
Alan Honner, the lawyer who represented the defendant on behalf of TDF, stated that although the video contained material that some would find offensive, it did not constitute hate speech as defined by Canadian law. "The courts have consistently held that hate speech must be extreme, promoting the vilification and detestation of a particular group," Honner explained. "The trial judge recognized that this case did not meet that standard and accordingly entered an acquittal."
Under Canadian law, the crime of publicly inciting hatred occurs when a person communicates statements in a public setting that promote hatred against an identifiable group in a manner likely to lead to a breach of the peace. While rarely prosecuted, such cases are becoming more frequent as debates over contentious issues intensify.
The incident began when school authorities intercepted the student as he was putting up the posters. After scanning the QR code and watching the first 15 seconds of the 14-minute video, school authorities deemed the content hateful and called the police, leading to a criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution.
Honner questioned the decision-making process of school authorities, suggesting that they acted without fully assessing the material and without due concern for the student’s welfare. "No reasonably informed person could determine whether the video constituted hate speech based on the first 15-seconds," Honner said. "Rather than engaging with the student or guiding him towards a better understanding of the social issues, the administration unfortunately chose to pursue a legal remedy."
The defendant was also acquitted of a mischief charge relating to the same incident.
Litigation director for TDF, Mark Joseph, said: "Criminalizing speech is perilous, not least because laws expand to their interpretive limit. Here we see, also, the move to transform a moral or ideological dispute into a legal one. This needs to be resisted so that Canadians can debate issues without fear of legal persecution."
The defendant, an 18-year-old student, was charged after placing posters around his school that contained a QR code linking to a video warning transgender individuals about the risks of gender reassignment surgery. The case was taken up by TDF. The defence argued that, while the video was graphic and controversial, it did not meet the legal threshold for hate speech.
Alan Honner, the lawyer who represented the defendant on behalf of TDF, stated that although the video contained material that some would find offensive, it did not constitute hate speech as defined by Canadian law. "The courts have consistently held that hate speech must be extreme, promoting the vilification and detestation of a particular group," Honner explained. "The trial judge recognized that this case did not meet that standard and accordingly entered an acquittal."
Under Canadian law, the crime of publicly inciting hatred occurs when a person communicates statements in a public setting that promote hatred against an identifiable group in a manner likely to lead to a breach of the peace. While rarely prosecuted, such cases are becoming more frequent as debates over contentious issues intensify.
The incident began when school authorities intercepted the student as he was putting up the posters. After scanning the QR code and watching the first 15 seconds of the 14-minute video, school authorities deemed the content hateful and called the police, leading to a criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution.
Honner questioned the decision-making process of school authorities, suggesting that they acted without fully assessing the material and without due concern for the student’s welfare. "No reasonably informed person could determine whether the video constituted hate speech based on the first 15-seconds," Honner said. "Rather than engaging with the student or guiding him towards a better understanding of the social issues, the administration unfortunately chose to pursue a legal remedy."
The defendant was also acquitted of a mischief charge relating to the same incident.
Litigation director for TDF, Mark Joseph, said: "Criminalizing speech is perilous, not least because laws expand to their interpretive limit. Here we see, also, the move to transform a moral or ideological dispute into a legal one. This needs to be resisted so that Canadians can debate issues without fear of legal persecution."