Milan Papez and the Silver Bullet

KANE v. The Silver Bullet Harvey Kane and The Jewish Defence League of Canada v. Milan Papez, Sr., Milan Papez, Jr. And The Silver Bullet (June 13, 2002; Deborah E. Prowse, Panel Chair)

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/legislation/Panel_Decisions/panel_de...

Discrimination

– Grounds – Race – Religious beliefs – Area – Publication – Pamphlet published and distributed by the respondents denigrating Jews and Asians – Pamphlet constituting “a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation” within the meaning of the Individual's Rights Protection Act – Tone and language used by the respondents in their pamphlets were menacing and threatening, and reflected hatred and contempt of Jews and Asians – Limiting the respondents’ right to freedom of expression was warranted to promote protection against discrimination – Intention to discriminate not relevant - A critical feature of human rights law is that it is the impact upon targeted groups and not intention that is determinative of discrimination – Respondents ordered to cease publication and display of similar material and to pay $2500 in general damages to the complainants for pain and suffering – Complaint allowed The complainants argued that the respondents published and distributed pamphlets that were derogatory and discriminatory to Jews and Asians, and alleged that the respondents discriminated or intended to discriminate on the basis of race and religious beliefs. The respondent’s publications frequently referred to others as “Nazis.” The respondents argued that they were publishing evidence of corrupt practices and injustices suffered by themselves and their families, that they were exposing the truth, and that they did not intend to discriminate or offend the complainants.

HELD:

Complaint allowed. The pamphlet constituted “a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation” within the meaning of the Individual's Rights Protection Act. The panel characterized the pamphlets as “an anthology of accusations, criticisms, insults and denunciations reflecting the respondents’ personal views, unsupported by reasonable grounds.” The symbols used by the respondents, such as swastikas, elicited strong emotional responses from many who viewed them, and the tone used by the respondents in their publications was menacing and threatening. The language used in the pamphlets reflected hatred and contempt of Jews and Asians. A limitation on the respondent’s right to freedom of expression was warranted to promote protection against discrimination. Regarding the respondent’s argument that they did not intend to discriminate, the panel stated: “A critical feature of human rights law is that it is the impact upon targeted groups and not intention that is determinative of discrimination.” Respondents were ordered to cease future publication of similar material and to pay $2500 in general damages to the complainants for pain and suffering.

Cases Considered: Kane v. Church of Jesus Christ Christian Aryan Nations, No. 3, 1992, 18 C.H.R.R. D/1268; Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Engineering Students’ Society (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. 41243; Singer v. Iwasyk, (Unreported; November 5, 1976; Sask. Human Rights Trib.); Hameed Rasheed, Executive Director of the Black United Front of Nova Scotia v. Barry Bramhill, (1981) C.H.R.R. D/249; Kane et al v. Alberta Report et al, May, 2001, ABQB; Harry Abrams v. North Shore Free Press et al (No. 3) (1999) 3 C.H.R.R. 33 D/435; Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, (SCC), 1990, No. 3 S.C.R. 892; Regina v. Keegstra (1990) (SCC)

Statutes and Regulations Considered: Individual's Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-2, s. 2; Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-11.7, ss. 2(2), 3

Miscellaneous Works Considered: Concise Oxford Dictionary (6h Edition), 1976; Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1988

keywords:

Harvey Kane v. The Silver Bullet  Alberta Human Rigths Commission