Attorney General David Lametti yesterday would not define the scope of a new crime of “downplaying” the Holocaust..“I don’t have to define it,” Lametti testified at the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee reviewing his bill..According to Blacklock's Reporter, Bill C-19 would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit any public statements that “willfully promote anti-Semitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust” under threat of two years in jail..“How do you define downplaying?” asked Senator Denise Batters (Sask.). “I don’t have to define it as the Minister of Justice,” replied Lametti. “I mean, the word has a plain language meaning in English.”.“It’s downplaying, diminishing,” said Lametti. “It is a concept within criminal areas of law but it is also linked to the idea of promoting anti-Semitism or hatred. It’s not simply downplaying the Holocaust on its own but downplaying the Holocaust in a way that promotes anti-Semitism.”.Batters questioned why the Attorney General did not provide a definition of “downplaying” before writing it into the Criminal Code. “Usually government legislation, with all the massive resources of the Department of Justice behind it, carefully considers and then improves any areas where there may be potential problems,” said Batters..Senator Paula Simons (Alta.), who self-identified as having Jewish heritage, said dismissive treatment of the Holocaust was “horrifically offensive” but added: “I don’t think people should go to jail.”.“I am very concerned not just with the method of putting this very important Criminal Code amendment inside the Budget Implementation Act but with the long term implications for Canada’s Jewish community,” said Simons. The Senator said she feared lengthy, well-publicized criminal cases would give a platform to Holocaust deniers..“I am worried the backlash of this will actually inflame anti-Semitism more than defeat it,” said Simons. “Backlash is something we all fear,” replied Attorney General Lametti. “I think my answer would be this is one measure in the Criminal Code.”.Civil rights groups have opposed the measure. Hate speech is already a criminal offence under amendments passed by Parliament in 1970. “It is likely unconstitutional,” Cara Zwibel, director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), testified at May 18 hearings of the Senate committee..“‘Downplaying’ could reasonably capture someone who recognizes the historical reality of the Holocaust for the atrocity that it is but might argue other historical atrocities were worse,” said Zwibel..“Could an academic who examines historical genocide but doesn’t characterize the Holocaust as the worst example be considered ‘downplaying’ and thus captured by the law?”.“What about anti-abortion activists who use the term ‘holocaust’ to describe abortion?” said Zwibel. “Could this kind of rhetoric give rise to criminal sanctions?".She said in the CCLA's view, the proposed offence creates "too much potential to capture speech that while offensive and unpopular should not and cannot be properly criminalized.”
Attorney General David Lametti yesterday would not define the scope of a new crime of “downplaying” the Holocaust..“I don’t have to define it,” Lametti testified at the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee reviewing his bill..According to Blacklock's Reporter, Bill C-19 would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit any public statements that “willfully promote anti-Semitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust” under threat of two years in jail..“How do you define downplaying?” asked Senator Denise Batters (Sask.). “I don’t have to define it as the Minister of Justice,” replied Lametti. “I mean, the word has a plain language meaning in English.”.“It’s downplaying, diminishing,” said Lametti. “It is a concept within criminal areas of law but it is also linked to the idea of promoting anti-Semitism or hatred. It’s not simply downplaying the Holocaust on its own but downplaying the Holocaust in a way that promotes anti-Semitism.”.Batters questioned why the Attorney General did not provide a definition of “downplaying” before writing it into the Criminal Code. “Usually government legislation, with all the massive resources of the Department of Justice behind it, carefully considers and then improves any areas where there may be potential problems,” said Batters..Senator Paula Simons (Alta.), who self-identified as having Jewish heritage, said dismissive treatment of the Holocaust was “horrifically offensive” but added: “I don’t think people should go to jail.”.“I am very concerned not just with the method of putting this very important Criminal Code amendment inside the Budget Implementation Act but with the long term implications for Canada’s Jewish community,” said Simons. The Senator said she feared lengthy, well-publicized criminal cases would give a platform to Holocaust deniers..“I am worried the backlash of this will actually inflame anti-Semitism more than defeat it,” said Simons. “Backlash is something we all fear,” replied Attorney General Lametti. “I think my answer would be this is one measure in the Criminal Code.”.Civil rights groups have opposed the measure. Hate speech is already a criminal offence under amendments passed by Parliament in 1970. “It is likely unconstitutional,” Cara Zwibel, director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), testified at May 18 hearings of the Senate committee..“‘Downplaying’ could reasonably capture someone who recognizes the historical reality of the Holocaust for the atrocity that it is but might argue other historical atrocities were worse,” said Zwibel..“Could an academic who examines historical genocide but doesn’t characterize the Holocaust as the worst example be considered ‘downplaying’ and thus captured by the law?”.“What about anti-abortion activists who use the term ‘holocaust’ to describe abortion?” said Zwibel. “Could this kind of rhetoric give rise to criminal sanctions?".She said in the CCLA's view, the proposed offence creates "too much potential to capture speech that while offensive and unpopular should not and cannot be properly criminalized.”
