Fast talk on hate in a human rights context in Canada

SUMMARY AND KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE EXPERTS

Indifference and Inaction: 

• There is an institutional reluctance to take issues of hate seriously. These issues are often dismissed as one-offs with no follow up. 
• There is an institutional and, to a certain extent, public indifference to the rise in hate speech, incidents of hate and the far-right.

Rise in Extremism: 

• The divisive rhetoric from both domestic and international political leadership has given oxygen to extremism. 
• There is increasing legitimization and normalization of views in public discourse that may be considered hateful in nature. This has been amplified by the increasing use of the Internet throughout society. 
• As a result of the ever-growing use of social media, many extremist groups are able to transmit their messages of hate to an audience much larger than ever before and at rapid speed, which is why it may be useful for Internet service providers (ISPs) to play a role in addressing these issues.

Knowledge and Awareness:

• There is limited public and political awareness on issues involving hate, including what Canada’s hate crime legislation looks like. 
• Communities lack awareness and information on what to do when they are targets of hate crimes or hate incidents, including where and how to report them.
• There are serious problems with the information and official data that exists around hate crimes – from limitations in public reporting, to the inconsistent and insufficient ways that law enforcement records the data.

Policing:

• There are inconsistencies in police responses to hate crimes and a lack of police familiarity with the legal frameworks that could be employed to address hate crimes.
• There is a lack of resources and a lack of quality training around hate crimes and policing hate. There is also a question of whether or not these issues have been made a priority within law enforcement. 
• In the absence of trust and rapport between communities and law enforcement, the development of third-party or online mechanisms for reporting would help to ensure that these incidents are documented.
• It is important to capture intersectionality when reporting hate crimes.

Legislation: 

• There is concern that the laws and policies to fight hate effectively in Canada are not being applied. There are also concerns with the role that the existing law can play in addressing the various forms of hate speech and hate-related views. 
• The usefulness of reinstating Section 13 in the Canadian Human Rights Act remains a contentious issue. 

Services and Supports: 

• There are currently very few services and supports available for individuals and communities that are targeted by hate. Additionally, the services and supports that do exist do not provide adequate support or help to victims of hate crimes.
• There are few, if any, programs or initiatives for “deprogramming” those promoting hate or concretely countering the ideologies and the rhetoric that have informed their behaviour.

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Debate:

• The interplay between hate speech and free speech is a contentious issue. 
• The conflation of hate speech and free speech is a strategy employed by far-right extremists to defend themselves and their rhetoric.
• The ability to hold social media platforms accountable for removing hate speech and hate content from their platforms is still a challenge in Canada, as is ensuring that such removal does not result in over-censorship.

National or Parliamentary Study:

• There is a significant lack of rigorous research on the far-right and hatred, including with respect to the impacts hate has on communities.
• A focused study specifically looking at the growing issue of hate in Canada would help to identify the gaps that currently exist, as well as what is needed to address this issue going forward. 

Coordination and Engagement: 

• Any strategies to reduce hate-related behaviour would have to be multidimensional and multi-sectoral, which means they would not just implicate law enforcement and the criminal justice system, but education, health, and other private and public sector actors as well.

Short and Long-Term Goals: 

• The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) should set a number of short and long-term goals. Short-term goals could include developing resources on media and digital literacy, increasing public awareness on problems associated with hate, working in partnership with other provincial and territorial human rights commissions, and bringing issues of digital hate to the forefront in its interactions with the international community.  Long-term goals could include experimenting with counter-speech to determine its effectiveness, and convening a meeting of ISPs to generate options for countering hate online. 

BACKGROUND 

The CHRC has identified hate and intolerance as a key area of concern requiring further knowledge development. As part of this exercise, the CHRC hosted a Fast Talk on Hate in a Human Rights Context in Canada to help frame, explore and refresh its thinking on this issue. 

A “Fast Talk” is a mini-roundtable consultation that brings together a small group of experts via teleconference on a given subject. 

The experts invited to the Fast Talk were asked to answer the following policy questions in writing ahead of time: 

1. What types of hate-related behaviors, activities, or events are of greatest concern?
2. What are some preconditions or precursors that serve to encourage or support hate-related activities and how can we measure these precursor activities? What are some early interventions that might successfully address precursor behaviour and disrupt the growth, spread, or escalation of cycles of hate? 
3. What are the ramifications of hate and what effect does it have on victims and on marginalized groups in Canada? How do we recognize and measure these? What can minimize or mitigate these harms?
4. What can Canada learn from past and current international and regional debates, programs and practices on hate-related issues? 
5. What insights do you have on complex and emerging issues such as: 
   1. the changing forms of media and the rise of online communities, including social media
   2. the impacts on freedom of expression, including free speech
   3. intersectionality – how might hate-motivated behavior affect people or communities differently? 
6. What practical tools or strategies would you see as most helpful to both protect people from hate and to promote inclusion and belonging in Canada? Who should lead these strategies and who should be involved (ie. tech firms and Internet Service Providers, parliament, media, etc.)? What role could the CHRC have? 

The written responses from the experts were compiled and distributed to both the experts and CHRC staff in advance of the Fast Talk discussion. The CHRC and experts then participated in a 3-hour teleconference on November 23, 2018, to discuss and elaborate on the written responses. The Fast Talk was moderated by Monette Maillet, Deputy Executive Director and Senior General Counsel at the CHRC, and Valerie Phillips, Director of the Legal Services Division and General Counsel at the CHRC. CHRC staff were in attendance as observers during the Fast Talk, both in person and through teleconference. 

EXPERT PARTICIPANTS 

The following experts participated in the Fast Talk (see Appendix for biographies): 

• Amira Elghawaby, Human Rights Advocate and Journalist; Board Member, Canadian Anti-Hate Network
• Bernie Farber, Chair, Canadian Anti-Hate Network 
• Richard Moon, Law Professor, University of Windsor 
• Fo Niemi, Executive Director, Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations
• Barbara Perry, Professor, University of Ontario Institute of Technology 
• Cara Zwibel, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Advisory Board, Centre for Free Expression 

FAST TALK DISCUSSION 

OPENING THOUGHTS AND KEY POINTS

“We all cherish the sense of general wellbeing we have in Canada, but it is in those moments where we are face-to face-with blatant hatred and discrimination…that we look to our institutions for protection to ensure that we will not feel that threat and that our children are going to be safe.” – Expert Participant  

Indifference and Inaction: 
Experts feel that there is a vacuum when addressing issues of hate in Canada. One expert expressed that in more recent years, the general sense from individuals who are targets of various forms of hatred – including death threats, vandalism, assault, or harassment at work – is that there is an institutional reluctance to take these issues seriously. It was stated that these issues are often dismissed as one-offs with no follow up and that, oftentimes, there are information gaps as to what exactly hate crimes are and how to deal with them. For instance, even individuals that one would assume would have some understanding of the legal ways to address hate-related issues, such as the police, are not always aware of what recourse people have. As a result, many people who are targets of hatred feel let down by the various institutions in their communities. 

Another expert went further in discussing the institutional and public indifference to the rise of hate speech and hate-related activities, including the more visible presence of hate groups both online and on the ground in real time. It was stated that this indifference translates into a lack of proactive action, a lack of reaction, a lack of application of the law, a lack of prevention, and a lack of outreach and cooperation between communities and institutional actors. This expert also stated that this indifference may be partially explained by cutbacks which have resulted in institutional actors no longer undertaking activities that led to gains being made in dealing with hate and discrimination in Canada. 

One expert noted that there has also been an indifference to the rise of the far-right. For instance, this expert stated that Public Safety’s threat assessments over the past few years have rejected the notion that there is any real risk associated with the far-right. The expert expressed concern that this tendency to reject the notion that the far-right is problematic legitimizes the hatred that they express. 

Rise in Extremism: 
The expressions of hatred, white supremacy and extremism have taken various forms over the years. One expert stated that, in the past, there was a coming together of different racialized and progressive groups, as well as the authorities, to build a “fence of protection” against hatred, and that although these groups were successful in eliminating right-wing extremist groups from the public eye, the threat of extremism wasn’t eliminated – rather, it remained bubbling under the surface. One expert noted that today’s world is much more complex and complicated than the past, giving rise to situations that we’ve never come across before. Thus, the significant and dangerous rise in extremism that has been seen in the last three or four years can be partially explained by certain factors unique to the current context. 

One expert stated that current domestic and international political leadership has given oxygen to extremism, resulting in more acts of physical violence than we have seen in recent years. For instance, this expert stated that the rise in “Trumpism” in the United States and the divisive rhetoric that the President continues to promote, is allowing extremists to come out of hiding and feel a great deal of comfort and legitimacy in their cause. However, it was noted that these effects are not unique to the United States, and that they are infiltrating the Canadian landscape as well. 

Another expert noted the increasing legitimization and normalization of views in public discourse that may be considered hateful in character. It was stated that the normalization of these hateful views in public discourse is something that has been advanced by the Internet, as the Internet allows individuals to tailor their consumption of information to sources that confirm their views without necessarily being exposed to a wider range of perspectives. This, in turn, contributes to more extreme positions. With the proliferation of hateful narratives online, there are very few venues or platforms where one can go to escape this sort of discourse or these sorts of narratives. As a result of the ever-growing use of social media, many extremist groups are able to transmit their messages of hate to an audience much larger than ever before and at rapid speed. This is why one expert noted that it might be useful for private ISPs to play a role in addressing these issues. Although this expert also noted that there may be risks attached to relying solely on these private actors to expunge hateful material from the Internet. The importance for public actors – including lawmakers and law enforcement – to work with these private actors in addressing these issues was also emphasized. 

The Role of Law:
One expert noted that the law, as a form of restrictive regulation, might have a limited role to play in addressing certain hate-related issues. Although the law does have some role to play – for instance, the hate speech prohibitions in the Criminal Code – it was stated that the larger the problem, or the more commonplace some extreme views become, the less useful the law may be in addressing these problems. 

Research: 
One expert emphasized the significant lack of rigorous research that exists on the far-right and hatred, including the impacts hate has on communities. This expert stated that this lack of research exacerbates certain trends because it is easier to deny that there is a problem if there is a lack of evidence to support it. Therefore, from an academic perspective, there is still a great deal of work to be done in this area.

SITUATION AS IT IS NOW 

“…we have free speech in this country, but there are limits to even that free speech, and the most repugnant of free speech – the most serious and hateful – has to be dealt with if we are living in a free and democratic society…I have as much right, or my friend who is Black has as much right, to walk down the street free of harassment, free of vilification and free of fear as does anybody else.” – Expert Participant 

Knowledge and Awareness: 
Experts expressed that there is fairly limited public and political awareness on issues that involve hate, including what Canada’s hate crime legislation looks like. There is also a lack of awareness and information for communities on what to do when they are targets of hate crimes or hate-related incidents, including where and how to report them. Additionally, one expert noted that even journalists are unaware of the research on hate, and are often taken aback by the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the problem. The expert surmised that if journalists, who have their ear to the ground, are not fully aware of the problem, one can only imagine how limited public awareness is on this issue. It was emphasized that without public awareness, pressure will not be brought to bear on politicians who may be contributing to the spread of misinformation. 

Experts also expressed that there are serious problems with the information and official data that exists around hate crimes, including with respect to limitations in public reporting and the inconsistent and insufficient way that law enforcement records the data. 

Policing:
Several experts stated that police services are not responding adequately and sensitively to individuals and communities targeted by hate. Some experts discussed the inconsistencies in police responses to hate crimes and a lack of police familiarity with the legal frameworks that could be employed to address hate crimes. Additionally, the definitions around what constitutes a hate incident versus a hate crime are unclear and seem to be different across the board, which makes it difficult to know what police are responsible for documenting and contributes to inconsistencies when trying to understand the full extent of the problem. Some experts went on to state that they were unsure if police were even the right body to be dealing with hate incidents. Another expert stated that the lack of understanding by police on how to enforce laws related to hate crimes can be partially explained by the subjective and difficult nature of these issues. It was emphasized that this is why anti-hate units in the police force are so important, as the specialists within these units gain the expertise and understanding required to ensure that hate laws are effectively enforced. One expert acknowledged that some police forces in Canada have created such units to deal with hate speech and hate crime investigations, and noted that it would be useful to conduct a study on their effectiveness. 

One expert stated that not only are there a lack of resources and quality training around hate crimes and policing hate, but there is also a question of whether or not this is a priority within law enforcement. For instance, this expert stated that although this may be a priority to those specifically involved in diversity or hate crime areas, it is not necessarily something that is of interest to the front line, which is why it is imperative that the prioritization of hate crimes be emphasized within all areas in the police force. It was suggested that research could be done to find out why there is such institutional resistance and indifference to this issue, and why some police remain reticent in applying the appropriate statutory obligations and duties that exist on hate crimes. It was stated that another area where law enforcement and intelligence agencies are showing a lack of concern and/or are in denial is on the problems posed by the far-right and right-wing extremism. It was stated that the lack of action or refusal to be proactive on these issues, until something serious happens, could result in further problems.  

In order to address issues of reporting hate crimes to police, one expert suggested that authentic community engagement and outreach, with targeted communities, would enhance trust in law enforcement and increase the likelihood of individuals and communities reporting incidents. However, until trust and rapport can be effectively built between law enforcement and communities, experts suggested the development of third-party mechanisms for reporting, which is a strategy increasingly being used in Europe. Alternatively, building online mechanisms for reporting incidents to law enforcement agencies would also allow individuals to report their victimization without concrete engagement with police, which is sometimes the sole barrier that stops individuals from reporting these incidents. Doing so would ensure that these incidents are documented, enabling communities, law enforcement, and society writ large to better identify patterns and trends that might be developing. 

Experts also discussed the importance of intersectionality when reporting hate crimes. However, currently, when victims of a hate crime report this crime, they are only permitted to check off one aspect of their identity. One expert gave the example that if an individual is Black and queer and is targeted for both of these reasons, collection procedures currently in use only capture one of these identities. Therefore, it does not capture the full scope of the picture or the full scope of what people are feeling. One expert stated that community members continue to say that they want the full scope of what they’ve experienced to be documented, and they want all of the characteristics that they were targeted for to be taken note of. 

Legislation:
Some experts stated that the repeal of Section 13 in the CHRA has created a protection gap with respect to hate speech and combatting the vilification of particular communities. This led some experts to suggest the need for enhanced legislation to address these gaps, or the reinstatement – and perhaps slight reshaping – of Section 13. On the other hand, another expert rejected the notion that the elimination of Section 13 resulted in a protection gap. According to this expert, Section 13 was not an effective way of dealing with this issue and it put the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal) in difficult and awkward positions in many cases. Another expert felt that hate speech prohibition that focuses on extreme speech is not well situated in a human rights code/act or process that is geared towards addressing discrimination more broadly. Additionally, this expert expressed concern that Section 13 placed an incredible burden on private parties, noting that most cases that were brought before the Tribunal were brought forward by a single individual, who bore an incredible personal cost for doing so. Therefore, this expert suggested that other options should be explored to address the form of hatred previously protected under Section 13. 

Some experts expressed concern that the laws and policies that have been put in place to fight hate effectively in Canada are not being applied. It was suggested that there needs to be a much richer discussion on the limited record of prosecutions for hate-related offences, as well as the apparent reluctance of Attorney Generals’ offices to prosecute such cases. One expert noted that treating hate-related crimes like ordinary crimes deprives individuals and communities who are targets of hatred of the equal benefit of the law. Further, it was suggested that there needs to be more focus on the judiciary, and that it is imperative for judges to be both properly trained on hate-related issues and representative of the communities that they serve. 

Services and Supports: 
Experts stated that there are currently very few services and supports – including within police services – available for individuals and communities who have been targeted by hate. In addition, the services and supports that do exist do not provide adequate support or help to victims of hate crimes. It was suggested that it is imperative that individuals providing these services and supports have the training necessary to deal with the specific dynamics associated with hate crimes. Further, there are few, if any, programs or initiatives for “deprogramming” those promoting hate or concretely countering the ideologies and the rhetoric that has informed their behaviour. 

One expert mentioned that, according to recent hate crime statistics, there have been a significant number of attacks against religious communities by people under the age of eighteen. This raises several concerns in regards to what young people in Canada are currently being exposed to, as well as what kind of strategies are being implemented to promote anti-racism and anti-hatred narratives from a young age. It was emphasized that the implementation of these types of strategies is quite important, as more recently, there appears to be “pushback” on the concept of multiculturalism in Canada. Such pushback is a very serious public safety threat for marginalized communities, yet several experts noted that it does not seem to be garnering as much public concern as it merits. 

French Inclusivity: 
One expert noted that a lot of the conversation and action on hate crime in Canada currently takes place only in English and not in French, resulting in messaging on issues of equality, rights and non-discrimination not being accessible to everyone in Canada. Therefore, it was suggested that it is important that French-speaking media and decision makers be engaged in this process going forward.

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Debate: 
One expert stated that hate speech is not free speech, and that the conflation of the two is a typical ruse on the part of far-right extremists to defend themselves and their rhetoric. It was also noted that far-right extremists use any restrictions on speech as a means of reinforcing a victim mentality. However, another expert disagreed with the statement that hate speech is not free speech. This expert stated that freedom of expression as a constitutional principle protects all kinds of expression, while also noting that the courts have decided that it is reasonable to restrict hate speech in certain circumstances. This expert further stated that, when the courts say it is reasonable to restrict hate speech, they are not talking about the kind of hate speech that the average person thinks about when they use the term; rather, they are talking about really extreme forms of hate speech – speech that vilifies the members of a particular group. Overall, this expert expressed that they are not confident that the law is a good way to deal with some of the lesser forms of hate speech. This expert also pushed back on the common notion that free speech allows one to get away with saying things that are hateful. Although recognizing that it has become fashionable for the far-right to cast themselves as the great defenders and protectors of freedom of expression, and that any attempt to silence or de-platform them is an affront to freedom of expression, this expert also stated that it is important to recognize that there are people who genuinely believe in the principle of freedom of expression and feel that there is a real problem with attempts to criminalize any sort of speech. To counter this, this expert stated that strong proponents of freedom of expression know that it is incumbent upon them to counter hateful speech rather than censor it. 

Another expert agreed that, while it is important to embrace, encourage and support the concept of free speech, it is equally important to acknowledge that, over the course of many years, the courts have recognized hatred as becoming a prevalent and serious factor, and have drawn a distinction between hate speech and free speech. 

One expert also expressed that the claim that some people conflate free speech and hate speech can be further explained by two concepts. First, this claim can be about the scope of and limits on freedom of expression – whether hate speech is a form of expression that carries some value but should nevertheless be limited because it also causes harm, or whether it is instead a category of “speech” that has no value and therefore no prima facie claim to protection. Second, instead of directly defending hateful speech, this claim can be about hate groups asserting their right – and the right of others – to make such odious claims as a matter of free speech. 

One expert stated that it is important to know how to talk about free speech and hate speech. For instance, this expert stated that sometimes too much ground is given to the opponents of hate speech laws who present such laws as restricting speech that causes offence to other people. This expert was of the view that this language of “offence” is too subjective and that the language should be more focused on harm or injury.  

One of the key issues in any discussion around online platforms and hate speech is the issue of how it is being addressed, and ensuring that online platforms don’t become purveyors for spreading fear and hate. It was stated that, although there have been some improvements – most notably, in Germany – the notion of holding social media platforms accountable to remove hate speech and hate content from their platforms is still a challenge in Canada. One expert noted that Section 320.1 of the Criminal Code, which permits the police to go before a judge and seek an order for the removal of hateful material online, is underutilized. It was suggested that when examining the law in this area, it is worth considering the reasons why this is the case, including whether the process is too cumbersome, whether there is jurisdictional confusion, and whether seeking an order in this context is an effective means of addressing the issue. This may assist in improving this section of the Criminal Code.    

LOOKING AHEAD 

“…unless we find a way to bring citizenry, corporations and the media together with government, and work cooperatively, I think hate is going to win. And that’s not what we want. I think that we can find a way to do this…I think that’s the goal that we have to work towards.” – Expert Participant 

Media:
It was suggested that, with the growth of “trash” radio and the role that traditional media plays with respect to this issue, it would be important to engage with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to see how it is dealing with hate-related issues in broadcasting and other areas that fall within its jurisdiction. It was stated that, over the years, the CRTC has devolved too much of its regulatory authority to the private sector, which has proven to be ineffective, lacking the strength that the CRTC would have in dealing with complaints filed under the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Regulations. 

Another area that should be examined is the issue of readers’ or viewers’ comments on media articles online. Oftentimes the comments section on these articles is a free-for-all, openly inciting hatred and discrimination towards protected groups. It was suggested that it would be useful to look at whether the industry, or the CRTC, could issue stronger guidelines related to online comment sections. 

One expert stated that there is currently little transparency in relation to how social media platforms monitor content and deal with reports of violations of the terms of service or of the law. It was suggested that, because they are continuing to develop and innovate in this area, it would be important and useful to examine what these platforms are doing currently and what they might be doing in the future. It was also stated that, because the Internet has become an important tool for hate mongers worldwide, the government should take a lead in bringing ISPs together – particularly the large ISP groups that provide a platform for hate mongers and others – to develop what was called a “Bill of Responsibility”. It was stated that, although ISPs claim to already have this type of provision in place, they don’t enforce it, which is why people continue to be radicalized online. It was emphasized that it is important for these providers and platforms to take their corporate responsibility seriously and find ways to deal with hatred before it becomes a problem that leads to the kinds of real life tragedies we continue to see. 

Another expert questioned and expressed concern over the role, rights and responsibilities of various platforms and ISPs. Although they are private actors, they are performing a highly public role, which carries certain obligations with it. Therefore, it was suggested that it may be appropriate for lawmakers and government actors to play a role in ensuring that these platforms and providers don’t over-censor and provide guidance about what kind of materials should be removed. 

Tools and Resources:
One expert suggested that it would be useful to have a central repository of information, resources and research on hate-related issues so that community advocates could get a better sense of the nature and extent of the problem, as well as what tools and resources may already be available. 

Some experts felt that artificial intelligence technologies may eventually become a very effective tool for filtering content so long as it does not end up casting a broader net than it should, resulting in over-censorship. 

It was also suggested that, as tools continue to be developed, it would be important to ensure that some of these tools are also being developed in French, noting that some of the hateful rhetoric coming out of Quebec has been of particular concern. 

National or Parliamentary Study: 
Some experts stated that a focused study specifically looking at the growing issue of hate in Canada would help to identify the gaps that currently exist, as well as what is needed to address this issue going forward. It was also suggested that, given that we are living in an increasingly digital world, it would be imperative for such a study to look at how to deal with digital hate and hate speech. One expert stated that the starting point for such a study would be to do a meta-analysis to determine what is already known and not known about hate and hate crime in all of its forms. This expert suggested that this type of analysis and study could be two-fold: the first part could consist of multiple related studies on the more banal forms of hatred, micro-aggressions, online hate, hate crime and the hate movement; and the second part could be a review of how a hate crime law could work in practice – from legislation, to policing, to experiences of perpetrators and victims, to prosecution and sentencing. According to this expert, this second part is currently being done at the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism, and is entitled “Life Cycle of a Hate Crime”. One expert suggested that, while some type of national study on hate could begin a broader public conversation on these issues, it might not be useful in producing concrete actions. Therefore, it was suggested that micro-projects be undertaken in tandem to produce tangible, concrete and sustainable outcomes. 

It was also suggested that more pressure should be put on the federal government to initiate or reinvent a national action plan against racism, which would examine not only racism, but also all forms of xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny. 

The Role of Existing Law:
It was suggested that there be an examination on the role of existing law and how to make better use of it. It was stated that, while an important part of the existing law is its symbolic function – it is a declaration that certain things are unacceptable – if it is never enforced, this symbolic function becomes insignificant and meaningless. Additionally, it was suggested that the requirement of consent by the Attorney General prior to any prosecution under Section 319 of the Criminal Code be re-examined to consider its significance and importance, or ways in which it may obstruct. One expert expressed that the law should be the last resort for responding to hate.  

Canadian Human Rights Commission: 
It was suggested that although the CHRC may be limited in its jurisdiction and in its powers under the CHRA, it does have a strong role to play within the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), where the federal, provincial and territorial human rights commissions can work together to help combat hate and other forms of discrimination at all levels across the country. 

It was also suggested that the CHRC use its interactions at the international level, such as with National Human Rights Institutions in other countries or at the United Nations, to discuss the legislative and policy grey areas on this issue in Canada, and to identify promising practices being undertaken elsewhere.  

Coordination and Engagement:
It was stated that any strategies to reduce hate-related behaviour would have to be multidimensional and multi-sectoral, which means they would not just implicate law enforcement and the criminal justice system, but education, health, and other private and public sector actors as well. Additionally, in order to address the institutional indifference and resistance on this issue, one expert suggested that it would be useful to find ways to also engage leaders of various agencies, such as regulatory agencies or law enforcement agencies. 

One expert emphasized that although reducing hate-related behaviour amongst youth is imperative – and much of the intervention strategies that currently exist focus on youth – it is also important amongst adults. It was stated that many of those involved in the far-right movement, and especially the alt-right movement, are adults, and that it is therefore important to think about strategies specifically targeting adults. It was suggested that the labour movement could play an important role in this respect. 

One expert also mentioned the importance of considering the different dynamics of hate and responses to hate across different communities that are affected – specifically, the urban-rural dynamic and what hate looks like in rural areas. This expert also noted that there are many forums and activities on hate-related issues for youth and young adults in urban areas, whereas youth and adults in rural areas are more isolated and therefore do not have access to the kinds of anti-hate supports and services that are visible and active in urban communities. Therefore, it was suggested that, moving forward, it is important to continue to consider and engage with rural communities. 

Civil Society Organizations:
There are many civil society organizations currently doing exceedingly good work to address hate. For instance, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network is currently monitoring and researching extremism in order to understand it and to curtail it. This network is comprised of a small group of researchers, advisors and academics that have academic or research expertise in dealing with hate crime, white supremacy and extremism. It was stated that it is crucial to work with organizations such as this, comprised of individuals who have this kind of experience. 

Anti-Hate Messaging: 
The repetition of hateful rhetoric, whether from politicians or online, penetrates the public consciousness. Although the same can be said about the repetition of anti-hate messages, these kinds of messages have been less visible and not as loud, and do not appear to be resonating as much in the public sphere. One expert suggested that more needs to be done to amplify the anti-hate messaging/narrative in much the same way as the far-right movement has amplified their own messaging/narrative. 

SHORT AND LONG-TERM GOALS FOR THE CHRC

“It is so critical for those communities that really do feel the potential to be victimized, or who have been victimized, to hear very loudly and clearly…that this behaviour, these attitudes that are being promoted online or offline in our communities, are not OK, and that we are looking for specific strategies to address them.” – Expert Participant 

Short-Term Goals: 

Digital and Media Literacy
It was suggested that the CHRC could develop resources on media and digital literacy – for instance, on how to identify extremism that may not look like extremism, and how to identify the credibility of different sources. 

Increasing Awareness
It was suggested that the CHRC – in partnership with private and public sector actors, advocates and community organizations – engage in a series of meaningful consultations on the problems associated with hate in order to enhance political, institutional and public awareness. 

It was also suggested that conducting a meta-analysis on hate to better understand the “lay of the land” and what is known and not known about hate crime would not only help those who already have an interest in studying and understanding hate, but would also help to increase public awareness and understanding. The CHRC could play a crucial role by helping to disseminate the findings in ways that are accessible to everyone, including through talking papers for broader communities, through social media, mainstream media, media associated with particular communities and in other ways. 

Section 13
Although not all experts were in agreement with the following suggestion, one expert suggested that it is crucial for the CHRC to have tools, such as Section 13, to help fight against racism, bigotry and hate in Canada. This expert suggested that with a little bit of cleaning up and re-shaping, Section 13 could once again become a very good and effective tool in addressing hate speech. For instance, if there were a way, within Section 13, for the CHRC to bring a case forward to the Tribunal itself, it would remove one of the previous issues with Section 13, which is that it placed too much of a burden on private parties. 

Federal, Provincial and Territorial Cooperation
It was stated that more coordinated work needs to be done between national, provincial and territorial bodies on hate-related issues. It was suggested that the CHRC should work in partnership with other provincial and territorial commissions on these issues. One expert suggested that it would be helpful if the CHRC put hate on the agenda of next year’s CASHRA meeting. 
International Forums
It was suggested that as a part of its role in international forums, the CHRC could help bring to light certain emerging issues regarding digital hate in the age of digital democracy. 

Long-Term Goals: 

Counter-speech
One long-term goal that was suggested was for the CHRC – both on its own and in conjunction with its provincial and territorial partners – to experiment with counter-speech and its effectiveness, and to examine ways in which communities can be mobilized to effectively counter hate and extremism. 

Internet Service Providers
Although ISPs have the right to deny services to websites that violate their standards, in most cases they tend not to do so. It was suggested that the CHRC could work closely with ISPs to figure out how they can better apply their terms of use. One expert suggested that the CHRC could convene a meeting of ISPs to determine if there are better ways to block access when dealing with the most extreme forms of hate. Some experts also suggested that it may be useful to look into how providers were previously able to come to an agreement of understanding on identifying and blocking child pornography; although this is a very different issue – and may be easier to judge and exclude than hate speech – it was suggested that the methods used may prove to be helpful and transferable to the current issue. 

One expert also suggested that the CHRC could play a very effective coordinating and convening role with different federal actors, such as Industry, RCMP, CSIS, CRTC, and others, and the Internet and social media industry. It was emphasized that it would be difficult to engage in conversations on sustainable outcomes to countering hate and hate groups without engaging all of the key players, which is why this convening role is so important. 

CONCLUSION 

The Fast Talk on Hate in a Human Rights Context in Canada provided a depth of knowledge that will continue to support the work of the CHRC. The ideas from the experts will inform the CHRC as it plans its short and long-term goals for addressing hate and intolerance in Canada. The experts invited to the Fast Talk provided many valuable insights that the CHRC can use to strengthen its role in approaching this issue in the future. 

APPENDIX 

BIOGRAPHIES OF EXPERTS