This second installment will focus primarily on past jurisprudence.  In particular, nearly 10 years back a strikingly analogous case was decided by the BC Tribunal, Abrams v. North Shore Press.

Summary of Facts

In the winter of 1993-94, the complainant, Harry Abrams an active member of the Jewish community in Victoria, began reading a ‘new’ newspaper, The Daily Victorian.  He became concerned about columns written by Doug Collins that he felt contained race-baiting themes that villified Jews. 

He subsequently discovered that these columns were syndicated versions of columns that appeared in the North Shore Newspaper which had a larger reach to communities across from Vancouver on the North Shore of Burrard Inlet.

Mr. Abrams then proceeded to file a human rights complaint under s. 7 of the BC Code. In particular, he alleged “that the continual barrage of articles written by Mr. Doug Collins promoting his views on Holocaust revisionism and Jewish conspiracies, have a cumulative affect [sic] of promoting hatred and contempt towards Jewish people.”  (Note: Although the columns were the work of one author, the complaint was filed against the organization; all articles in question can be found at the appendix of the decision linked above).

Arguments and Evidence

The Respondent failed to present any evidence on the issue of s. 7.  Their defense focused on the constitutionality of the provision which the British Columbia Supreme Court subsequently ruled was a matter to be decided by the Tribunal (Note: This issue is more complex than presented but outside the parameters of this particular post).

The Complainant relied on a number of articles, many of which were not part of the original complaint.  The Tribunal found that individually they were not helpful, only when taken in context as evidence with the other articles published. 

Expert Testimony

Dr. Frances Henry, a highly regarded professional in race relations and discrimination qualified to provide an opinion on anti-Semitism in society, and on the identification and effect of anti-Semitic propaganda reported in the Canadian media.

She expressly noted that the more serious forms of racism are those that are hidden in popular culture, such as in the words, images and descriptions used by media writers.

Techniques utilized in the reviewed articles were that of trivialization, indirect racism (i.e. not denying the holocaust, rather, stating that the numbers are greatly exaggerated), playing on popular stereotypes.

Her conclusions are as follows: 

…it is my opinion that any reasonable person would perceive discriminatory and biased ideas and statements in the four articles written by Doug Collins.  Although he does not make overtly anti-Semitic statements, the tone of the articles reveals little regard for Jewish people of their history.  Mr. Collins perpetuates the stereotypes against Jews especially those which allege widespread power and influence.

Dr. Barbara Harris is a professor of linguistics who applied a process known as discourse analysis to the four articles.  This technique looks at language in its interactional phase between a writer and a reader.

Her analysis concludes:

In short, these four articles are full of pejorative and derogatory language, and the rhetoric depends on devices intended to put the author in good light … expressed through faulty analogy, specious arguments and undocumented ‘facts’.  To the uncritical reader, they would undoubtedly say that Jews are powerful, vindictive, and hypocritical in upholding the historicity of an event the magnitude of which Collins and his fellows deny.

Another key factor considered during the decision making process was the fact of the vulnerability of the group being written about and the historical discrimination it has endured.

Additionally, it was made clear by several of the expert witnesses that print media and local newspapers are major transmitters of society’s standards, myths and images and that the media has the power to promulgate messages to effectively transmit discriminatory message in a covert form.

Decision

As the written decision by the Tribunal was brief and succinct, the whole decision is reproduced below:

Individually, and taken out of context, each of the four columns at issue might not convey messages that meet the high threshold that is necessary to be considered hatred or contempt within the meaning of s. 7(1)(b) of the Code.  However, collectively they do.  They repeatedly reinforce some of the most virulent forms of anti-Semitism.  They convey the message that Jews, individually and collectively, are selfish, greedy and manipulative; that they have conspired to control government institutions and the media; and they use that control to perpetuate inflated figures concerning the victimization of Jews during the Holocaust and to persecute anyone who speaks out against them.

The publication of these messages in a community newspaper that is delivered to almost every home in the community is likely to increase the risk to Jewish people of being exposed to hatred and contempt because of their race, religion or ancestry.  Mr. Collins expresses hatred or contempt indirectly and subtly.  He does not overtly incite hateful or contemptuous expressions.  However, he reinforces negative stereotypes of the Jews that have been promulgated for centuries.  Further, publication of these ideas in a credible newspaper increases the likelihood that others will manifest hateful and contemptuous views in a more directly harmful manner.

I find that the four columns, which were written by Doug Collins and published by the North Shore News, and which were the basis for this complaint, are likely to expose Jewish persons to hatred or contempt because of their race, religion or ancestry contrary to s. 7(1)(b) of the Code.