Law Times

Page 6 November 24, 2014 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT Better justice — incrementally t's somewhat ironic that not long after the province released updated statistics showing the Justice on Target program continues to lag, At- torney General Madeleine Meilleur was announcing a new effort called Better Justice Together last week. The two strategies are by no means the same. Justice on Target was about setting specific goals for speeding up criminal cases while Better Justice Together is a broader effort to make the overall justice system sim- pler, faster, and less expensive. It includes familiar themes around mak- ing the system easier to navigate, supporting mediation and oth er court alternatives in family law, and doing more to address mental health in the justice system. A key theme is collaboration across the justice system and introducing more modern technology. It's all things we've heard before. But in a speech last week, Meilleur suggested things would be different this time. "Despite our best efforts, government hasn't been a leader in harnessing the power of technology," she said. "The reality is we are not where we should be. So you may be asking yourself, 'Why now? What's different this time?'" The answer she gave was that the government is now focusing on in- cremental progress. "We are now focusing our efforts on projects that are incremental, targeted, and meet the expectations of court and tri- bunal users and the public," she said, citing changes such as the recent introduction through a pilot project of electronic filing options in the Small Claims Court. The government will be rolling it out across the province in early 2015, she noted. Other changes planned for the coming year include a pilot project Time for Canada to get rid of its blasphemy laws an someone please tell me how we can justify the inclusion of blasphemy as a criminal offence in Canada? Section 296 of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence for any- one to publish a blasphemous libel. The maximum sentence is a term of impris- onment not to exceed two years. Yes, there have been no prosecutions for about 80 years and I suspect any future prosecution would face a successful Charter challenge. But the law remains in the Criminal Code and to that extent it ref lects Canadian public policy. The Criminal Code doesn't define the term blasphemous libel, instead leaving it up to the courts to define it. Historically in Canada, the offence applied only to ex- posing Christianity to ridicule, but there's no reason to believe the offence couldn't encompass insults to any religion. The United Kingdom abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008. The United States has never had such laws. But many other countries have laws making it an offence to publish blasphemous statements. There are some international movements both to abolish blasphemy laws and also to make it an offence to insult any religion. Indeed, there's a United Nations dec- laration recommending the institution of such an offence. Blasphemy laws are par- ticularly odious. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the "application of these laws has resulted in the jailing of individuals for merely expressing a different religious belief or under false accusations." The most recent policy brief on the topic issued by the U.S. commission lists 40 people who are serving prison terms following convictions for blasphemy. As the commission pointed out, blas- phemy laws "have been proven to be ripe for abuse and easily manipulated with false accusations." These laws "encourage extremists to enforce their notion of truth on others" and "blasphemy accusations are frequently used to silence critics or democratic rivals under the guise of en- forcing religious piety." If we're to show any solidarity for those who have suffered and continue to be vic- tims of these situations, we must repeal our blasphemy law. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. That is, of course, un- less people believe their deity is capable of having hurt feelings. Nick Cohen, a British writer and author of the informa- tive book on censorship, You Can't Read This Book: Censor- ship in an Age of Freedom, asks the question: "Are the delicate deities in question so thin- skinned that their 'self-esteem' can only recover if their follow- ers perform human sacrifices and present them with corpses of their critics?" Cohen also ridicules those who support blasphemy laws by referring to the "tender feelings and brittle minds of be- lievers" who suffer "psychic harm . . . from hearing a strongly held view challenged" and feel the need to "mount the barricades against new thoughts that might torment and enrage the faithful." Aside from being a victimless crime, blasphemy laws punish people for insult- ing a concept or an idea. Since when is it a goal of the criminal law to protect con- cepts or ideologies as opposed to people? Worse, blasphemy laws have served to punish minorities and thereby violate free-speech rights and freedom of religion. Blasphemy laws therefore serve as a tool to violate human rights, not to enforce them. So why hasn't Canada repealed its blasphemy laws? Parliament recently repealed s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That hate speech section was in part a de facto blasphemy law, so why not show our support for free expression and religion as well as minority rights by repealing s. 296 of the Criminal Code? Yes, such an action would be largely symbolic but it would send a message to Canadians about our core values, in particular that we value free speech over archaic principles protecting ideologies. And how can we justify criticism of blas- phemy laws in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries while our own pro- visions remain part of our criminal law? It's puzzling why any nation that be- lieves in human rights would include blasphemy among its laws in 2014. LT Alan Shanoff was counsel to Sun Me- dia Corp. for 16 years. He currently is a freelance writer for Sun Media and teach- es media law at Humber College. His e- mail address is ashanoff@gmail.com. ©2014 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, com- pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $179.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $145 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $4.50. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at ........... 416-649-9585 or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glenn Kauth Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yamri Taddese Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arshy Mann Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James Kang CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lorraine Pang Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alicia Adamson Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Giles Electronic Production Specialist . . . . . . . Derek Welford Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com • LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes • LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes u Editorial obitEr By Glenn Kauth for a search warrants tracking system in Toronto that will allow court staff to more easily search for and find warrants. The government is also planning to expand its Crown case management system that al- lows for electronic disclosure in Toronto to make it available across the province. The changes are, admittedly, small and fall short of what people have been demanding for years. But even with something like Justice on Target, which has fallen short of its initial ambitious goals and even its revised ones, lawyers say they're still seeing progress in court with disclosure coming faster and cases proceeding a bit more smoothly. And with the government having allocated signifi- cant money for legal aid, things are improving on that front as well. The government, then, deserves some credit. It's certainly not fixing the backlog of issues in the justice system it let fester for years but it has at last shown it's able to move forward in a modest but more comprehensive way. — Glenn Kauth Social Justice Alan Shanoff C I

• Cover