On November 16, the Commons Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs laid its report before Parliament on the proposed legislation to ban the distribution to minors of "crime cards and games." The committee recommended adopting even *broader* restrictions on free expression.

To wit: it recommends, rather than targeting these specific products, amending the "obscenity" provisions of the Criminal Code to make illegal "communication to exploit and glorify cruelty, horror and violence for no socially redeeming purpose." It also recommends expanding the type of material covered to include such items as music and music videos, computer and video games, "obscene" topic newsgroups, comics, posters and games.

The obscenity provisions (notably s. 163) of the Code affect all persons, not just minors. They dictate what material Canada Customs will stop at the border, where it can be summarily named "obscene" and either returned or (more often) destroyed. The accused importer must prove his innocence.

It is to be hoped that the Minister of Justice, who expressed concern about freedom of expression when introducing the proposal, will reject the committee's recommendation as unacceptably broad. However, Canada is in the grip of hysteria about violence (having recently condemned the Power Rangers) and crime (especially youth crime), and such measures may well enter the criminal law, possibly in upcoming packages to revise the general part of the Criminal Code.

It is worth noting that Pierrette Venne, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, stood to dissent from the majority report when it was tabled. The BQ members of the committee had been the most critical of the process during hearings, and they repeated their objections in the House.

Mme Venne pointed out that nobody on the committee, nor any of the MPs who had presented numerous petitions on the subject, had ever seen the products until copies were obtained (at no little difficulty) for the hearings. Though gratuitous and tasteless exploitation of violence was a matter of concern, she asked whether the time and expense wasted on the inquiry was responsible. In her words: "We firmly believe that this committee should deal more with issues related to real violence rather than hypothetical violence due to the action of some shady publsihers."

I will, as a contibutor to the hearings, receive a copy of the report shortly. I will post details at that time.

Committee Report on Crime Games Recommends Broad Ban

I have had the opportunity to review the Justice Committee's report on proposed legislation to ban "crime cards and games." There are one or two items of good news contained in it, but largely the document is quite unsettling.

The committee noted that "there was general agreement that these products do not have a pervasive presence in the Canadian entertainment market." As it turns out, the assistance of Customs was required to obtain any sample. Only 13 sets of cards had ever been intercepted at the border, and of those, only one was prohibited entry. The game had never been seen, and had to be obtained from the US distributor.

Despite acknowledging that there has been no conclusive link established between portrayals of violence and social violence, the committee accepted that it is a contributing factor. "...The undue exploitation of cruelty, horror or violence ... has no social or cultural redeeming value. Although it is difficult to establish a cause and effect relation between such material and anti-social attitudes and actions, the Committee has reasonable grounds to bcleive that there is at least a correlation between these social phenomena."

However, the committee rejected the draft legislation as it was presented, noting that it was overly narrow in its application - both in the types of media targeted and in the audience - and that there were inadequate safeguards to stand up to a Charter challenge. It relies on the Butler decision of 1992 to support the current "obscenity" provisions of the Criminal Code and recommends that a third category - "undue exploitation or glorification of cruelty, horror or violence" - be added. Alternatively, a new section dealing with such material could be drafted following the model of the recent child pornography law.

One bit of good news is that the committee recommends the repeal of the "crime comics" provisions, which have been in place since 1949 and have not been enforced since the 1950's. It noted that concentrating on the medium rather than on the characteristics of the communication was not the best approach. On the other hand, the committee also recommends adding a preamble to any new legislation, that includes the following paragraph:

Crime cards and board games exploit, glorify and trivialize brutal violent crimes. Allowing the crime cards and board games to be sold as entertainment in the Canadian market will contribute to a culture of violence in our society, corrupt children and youth, and infringe the right of all Canadians to security of the person. Crime cards and board games are only the most recent media which glorify and exploit horror, cruelty and violence, with no redeeming cultural or social value.

Finally, the committee recommends that certain safeguards be built in to cover situations in which apparent exploitation may have a "higher" purpose. They recommend special defences based on "artistic merit," "news gathering and dissemination" and "public controversy." Needless to say, no form of entertainment or "low" art is going to survive an "artistic merit" defence, and the other categories do not apply.

However, it will still be legal for a tabloid to exploit a sensational murder in the name of "news gathering and dissemination" while a card drily describing the activity would be a forbidden item.

Finally, the committee recommends that the provincial attorneys- general give consent before any prosecution is commenced. "A measure of this kind would ensure that criminal prosecutions are undertaken for substantive public policy reasons and not used as a technique in a frivolous or vexatious way to harass and intimidate those whose actions have no substantial deleterious effect on the community." This is a good thing, but unfortunately certain provinces are much more likely to stop material than others. Ontario in particular is a hotbed of activist groups pressuring government to ban violent entertainment.

In its dissenting opinion, the Bloc Quebecois noted that, in light of Canadian and foreign case law on freedom of expression, the recommended broadening of the definition of "obscenity" might well not withstand a court challenge. They ask: "Is it necessary to amend the Criminal Code to eliminate a social evil which in many ways appears to have been exaggerated?"

It is heartening that the Minister of Justice, in responding to questions in the House, has expressed reservations on the very broad application of the recommended legislation. It is important to let him know just how broad the implications can be. Write to:

The Honourable Allan Rock, P.C., M.P. Minister of Justice House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A OA6