Proposed BC Police Reform Bill Seeks to Define ‘Discriminatory Jokes and Gestures’ as Misconduct
A proposed police reform bill in British Columbia is looking to change the definition of police misconduct to include discriminatory jokes and gestures, among other amendments.
While the proposed amendment calls to change the definition of police misconduct “to align with the Human Rights Code and to capture discriminatory jokes and gestures,” it remains unclear which jokes and gestures will be considered a breach of conduct or how such breaches will be decided.
“We count on our police to respond in difficult situations to keep us safe and there are ongoing conversations on how to change policing to keep pace with a changing world, particularly for many Black, Indigenous and other people of minority communities who have had negative experiences with the police,” Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Mike Farnworth said in an April 5 release on the reforms.
“By focusing on changes to municipal policing, we are setting the foundation for a modern policing system that is fair, equitable and responsive to all communities.”
The legislation also looks to allow the police complaint commissioner to call public hearings earlier during investigations into misconduct and provides the commissioners with more authority to conduct their own reviews and investigations into what contributes to complaints levelled against officials.
Related Stories
The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal had initially sided with singer Jeremy Gabriel, fining comedian Mr. Ward $35,000 overall with the ruling upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal. However, Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Suzanne Côté stated in their majority ruling that “A discrimination claim is not, and must not become, an action in defamation.”
The justices added that while the comments by Mr. Ward had not been “uplifting” they did not cause Mr. Gabriel to suffer any hatred, vilification, or discrimination.
At the time, Liberty Coalition Canada’s chief litigator James Kitchen called the Quebec decision “a much-needed victory for freedom of expression in Canada.”
Despite this, some were concerned that the Supreme Court ruling was close and not clear-cut, including Dax D’Orazio, a research affiliate for the University of Alberta’s Centre for Constitutional Studies. Mr. D’Orazio said that the case “undoubtedly cast a chill on Canadian comedy.”
“When democracies renege upon some of their core democratic commitments (like free expression), even when it’s good-intentioned and solely aimed at mitigating harm (hate speech, etc.), non- or even anti-liberal regimes (Russia, China, and Iran are probably the best examples) use these departures as alleged proof of hypocrisy and reframe them as justification for their own authoritarian tendencies,” Mr. D’Orazio said.
