Some Canadian parliamentarians have joined an informal grouping of legislators engaged in an international campaign to combat anti-Semitism. Further to that absolutely worthy end, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism is holding hearings in Ottawa. Part of their exercise aims at tightening up our nation’s existing hate speech laws.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is unequivocal in its denunciation of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. But we are skeptical about whether the focus of these hearings (which are not an official government of Canada enterprise) on hate speech laws represents a useful step toward the dual and related goals of fighting racism and defending civil liberties. These goals, we believe, ought to be advanced together.

Too often, in our view, legitimate revulsion against the vile effusions of modern anti-Semites is yoked with calls for censorship. Yet censorship weakens Canadian freedoms without reducing public attention to racist views and rhetoric.

It is often pointed out, correctly, that the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948—and even the formation of the UN itself—was largely inspired by a worldwide revulsion at the crimes of the Holocaust, and a global determination that nothing like them must ever be permitted to happen again.

No sane mind can be in doubt of the central facts: about six million Jews were systematically sought out by the Nazi regime, and methodically murdered in ways that multiplied the horror of the crime.

All decent people agree on the noxiousness of anti-Semitism. But reasonable and decent citizens can and do differ about what the law should do about it. The pre-Nazi Weimar regime in Germany, for example, took the approach many favour today—legal sanctions against racist publications. Tragically, that tactic did not prevent the rise of Nazi power or the nightmare of the Holocaust. Nor, in our respectful submission, can similar censorship attempts today create safety for targeted groups through legal restrictions on racist speech.

The CPCCA adopts a definition of anti-Semitism from parallel efforts in England. The definition of anti-Semitism from the London Declaration that reads, in part: “We are alarmed at the resurrection of the old language of prejudice and its modern manifestations in rhetoric and political action - against Jews, Jewish belief and practice and the State of Israel.” The CPCCA argues that there has been a marked increase in anti-Semitic events both in Europe and North America recently.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has long argued against “hate speech” laws, which do more to damage democratic debate than they do to protect those vulnerable to the acts of bigots. The definition employed by the CPCCA suggests the possibility that strong or even offensive speech could be made illegal because it was construed as criticizing the State of Israel or its policies. Yet that speech is clearly protected by the charter of rights. Despite protests by the CPCCA that it does not intend to outlaw “legitimate” criticisms of Israel or Israeli policy, there is reason to be very cautious about throwing out the civil liberties baby when trying to eliminate the racist bathwater.

Having government determine what is “legitimate” and what is not, rather than leaving that to the sound judgment of the Canadian public, smacks of paternalism.

It is laudable that a group of Canadian parliamentarians is trying to address the complex issues of anti-Semitism. But the BCCLA urges those parliamentarians not to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can best defeat racism by actively promoting better arguments in favor of racial amity, not by enlisting the state to shut up those we fear. Our association has asked to appear before the CPCCA to outline these views. It is unclear whether we will be given that opportunity. However, we believe all Canadians should engage in this important debate, and offer this essay as a small contribution to that larger end.

Tom Sandborn is a member of the board of directors of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.