A Message Of Tolerance

Relying upon s.2(b) freedom of expression rights under the Charter, Judge Bascom of the Alberta Provincial Court stayed a trespassing charge against William Whatcott, who received the trespass notice when distributing anti-gay literature at the University of Calgary. An indefinite ban was also lifted. This decision is consistent with other decisions on hate speech: no matter how abhorrent the message may be, there is expressive content in the communication and therefore protected under s.2(b).

Another factor for Judge Bascom was the place of the communication. This too is consistent with expression cases, as discussed in my November 17 blog on the City of Montreal case. According to Judge Bascom, the fact the incident occurred at a University was significant as "the concept of free expression is part of the University of Calgary philosophy." Interesting comment in light of the Pridgen case as discussed in my blog post here.

William Whatcott has not only been the subject of a Provincial Court decision, but also a Supreme Court of Canada case. Whatcott's case, in which he argued the hate speech provision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code is unconstitutional, is currently on reserve. Further information can be found in my blog postings here.

The determination of Charter rights are complex when faced with competing rights such as s. 2(b) freedom of expression versus the right not be discriminated against under s.15 of the Charter. In those instances, we, as a society, must look to the Courts to balance both rights meaningfully and fairly, in the context of Charter values, to come to the appropriate decision. 

Sometimes, society can also take some sage advice from those individuals, who we deem wise and worthy. I end this blog with a link to a message from Nobel Prize recipient, Lord Bertrand Russell. The message of tolerance can be heard here.

Pushing The Expression Envelope: Semiotics

In yesterday's blog, I discussed the expressive content of sound, noise, and music. Yes, even ring-tones have expressive content. To find that something has expressive content is important when it comes to freedom of expression rights under s.2(b) of the Charter. If a sound or gesture does not have expressive content, then it will not be protected. Even if it does have expressive content, the court will be more concerned with an infringement if the expression goes toward fulfilling a Charter value such as self-fulfillment or democratic entitlement. Of course, the government can still restrict that right if justified under s.1 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada suggests that expressive content, not only depends upon the purpose of the expression, but is also dependent on the place of that communication. Therefore, expressive content must also depend upon the source of that communication: human manipulation as opposed to a pure environmental source. 

On that basis, let's push the expression envelope, so to speak, and think about the expressive content of symbols. Semiotics is defined generally by writer and one-time Professor of Semiotics, Umberto Eco, as the "study of signs." Signs can be words, sounds, images, gestures, objects, body language or really anything which stands for something else. According to Roland Barthes, the linguistic philosopher who created a postmodern view of semiotics, all of these signs in the modern world are really a complex association of "language" or a "system of signification." Thus, the peace symbol emblazoned on an American flag during the Vietnam War is expression as well as the dancing men in the Sherlock Holmes mystery.

But how about numbers? Numbers are symbols and form a language. Numbers can express weight, time, and amount. Numbers have expressive content and meaning. In a world of technology, the expressive content of numbers is important and perhaps of crucial significance in today's information highway. presently, the legal community has focused on the intellectual property aspects of information and have treated numbers as property. However, as expressive symbols, information or data may be viewed as more than receptacles but as having intrinsic expressive value under s.2(b) of the Charter.

Who knows, perhaps in the postmodern world of the future, the Jetsons will be expressing themselves freely in a numeric world protected by the Charter.

Music, Noise, And Expression

Yesterday evening I attended Impromptu, a collaborative concert showcasing avant-garde or experimental musicians sponsored by New Works Calgary. Although, I had heard the music played on the CJSW's Noise radio program, to actually be present when the musicians compose and play in such a contemporaneous fashion, is truly wonderful. But being the lawyer that I am, I began to wonder about the expressive content of music, and particularly, the expressive content of noise.

The City of Calgary's noise bylaw or Community Standards Bylaw which prohibits continuous and non-continuous annoying or disturbing noise, including music. Whether or not the sound is "objectionable" according to the bylaw, is a question of fact for a Court to determine. Yet, what may be music to one person's ears may be noise to another person. What is objectionable to one may not be objectionable to another. Community standards shift and change over time, over place, and over age and temperament of the listener. 

In terms of Charter protection, section 2(b), freedom of expression, protects the expressive content of an individual. Certainly, in some circumstances, sounds can have expressive content and thereby be worthy of protection. In the Supreme Court of Canada decision in City of Montreal, both the majority and dissenting justice found noise can have an expressive content. However, in the majority's view "while all expressive content is worthy of protection, the method or location of the expression may not be". Thus an amplification of music onto a public street may be protected as long as it does not impede the public's use of the area for passage or communication. In the end the final determinant is whether the "free expression in a given place undermines the values underlying" the Charter right of freedom of expression. To determine this the historical function of the public area must be reviewed as well determining whether or not the expression undermines free "democratic discourse, truth finding, and self-fulfilment." The majority upheld the municipal bylaw as a valid justifiable restriction.

Justice Binnie, writing the dissent, disagreed the bylaw was benign and justified. His comments on expressive content is interesting. Based on the Larousse definition of noise or bruit in French, is not intrinsically a nuisance. Binnie's concern over the wide breadth of the bylaw included the scenario of a McGill student listening to Mozart with the window open or Stephen Hawking amplifying his voice through his voice assistance device. He found the legislation unjustifiable. 

Expressive content as a signifier of Charter rights under s.2(b) in the end is not the full expression of what s.2(b) protects. Shifting society values is ultimately what gives our Charter meaning. But values do shift. Once Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was considered "noise" and even, according to Goethe, "a threat to civilisation." So what is noise today may very well be the music of the future.

Judges As Poets?

The poet "judges not as the judge judges but as the sun falling around a helpless thing." Walt Whitman - Preface to the Leaves of Grass (1855)

WH Auden - Law, Like Love:

...Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,

 Speaking clearly and most severely,

Law is as I've told you before,

Law is as you know I suppose,

Law is but let me explain it once more,

Law is The Law...

Law is the clothes men wear...

From the two excerpts above, you have probably already formulated the premise of this blog: comparing and contrasting the differing viewpoints of poets through verse as opposed to judges through the formality of the law. Although that is the correct assumption, the bigger question is how did you come to that conclusion? Well, simply by reading the verses and extrapolating through their meaning. Thus, we come to the point: poetry can and does express in a few words what prose expresses in many. Law, by its very nature, tends to the prose side for that very reason. In other words, in law, verbosity reigns.

And yet, poetry does have a place in legal reasoning. As discussed yesterday, the complete versification of a judgment is frowned upon, but the use of relevant and timely excerpts of poetry or sayings of a poet to emphasize or illuminate a legal point, has an accepted place in the legal arena. The Honourable Justice Randall Scott Echlin, sitting on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice before he passed away, is a case in point. Although his practice area was employment law, his broad use of the wisdom of the poets in his judgments makes one wonder what his undergraduate degree was in. In three of his judgments, I found references to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Goethe, and Henri Frederic Amiel. Each of these excerpts provided an "opener" to the judgment and provide support and meaning to the reasons. 

Alberta is not immune either as Provincial Court Judge Ann Brown used the same quote of the poet Ovid in three sentencing cases. But the laurel wreath goes to British Columbia Provincial Court Judge Doherty who, in sentencing the accused, in a tragic manslaughter case, quoted Lord Byron from canto the third in Don Juan "All tragedies are finish'd by a death."

Upon reading that seven word phrase, there is a clear understanding by all of the immense impact a moment in time can have on a person's life and another person's death. And it is the poets and their poetry that can help us see this.

Poetic Justice Revisited

In a previous blog entitled Poetic Justice, I discussed the use of poetry in the courtroom. I referred to a recent Ontario case in which the Assistant Crown Attorney gave his submissions in rhyming verse. Subsequently, the Crown apologized for taking such poetic license. This case illustrates the uncertain role poetry has in the legal arena.

Often poetry is deemed incompatible with the legal precepts of the law and is frowned upon such as in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Porreco V. Porreco. In that decision, Justice Eakin's dissent was written entirely in rhymed verse. The majority, which included the Chief Justice, was not so moved by the poetry and, in a strongly worded decision, disapproved of the unconventional dissent.

On the other hand, poetry has been used effectively in many decisions to provide guidance on an issue or as a meaningful metaphor for the case. In these instances, the Judge uses an excerpt or line from a poem to emphasize the point. In tomorrow's blog, I will continue the search for the poetic in law with a survey of the Canadian cases, which although not fully versified, do use the power of poetry or words to it's fullest effect. On that note, I leave you with the poem entitled Power of Words by the 19th century British poet Letitia Elizabeth Landon:

'Tis a strange mystery, the power of words!

Life is in them, and death. A word can send

The crimson colour hurrying to the cheek

Hurrying with many meanings; or can turn

The current cold and deadly to the heart.

Anger and fear are in them; grief and joy

Are on their sound; yet slight, impalpable:-

A word is but a breath of passing air.