Book censorship in Canada

The Canadian government guarantees freedom of speech and of the press within “reasonable limits” in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.^[5] It is quite rare for Canada to ban books domestically, outside of wartime.^[1] The Criminal Code does prohibit certain kinds of speech, such as hate propaganda and “undue exploitation of sex”. Therefore the publication of any such materials could result in criminal charges.^[2] During both World Wars, the War Measures Act brought into effect vast censorship, both to keep up morale and to insulate the country against opposing political views.^[1]

Canadian customs officials are empowered to block the import of any material considered to be hateful, obscene, seditious, or treasonous.^[6] The goal of these restrictions is largely to protect from the social harm that encouraging hateful and obscene behaviors can create. Critics, however, feel that this censorship infringes too much on their free speech rights. Unfortunately, what is or is not hateful or obscene is difficult to describe precisely. In the words of Justice Kenneth Smith “There are many examples of inconsistencies in Custom’s treatment of publications.” Because there are no hard limits to what is or is not banned, the law can be applied unevenly.^[7] When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed in 1982, free speech rights became more protected, and fewer materials have been detained since.^[1] After the Little Sisters ruling customs censorship decreased once again because the law was revised so that Customs was responsible for proving the material was inappropriate instead of the onus being on the importer to prove it is not.^[7]

School board bans are usually responses to public outrage over explicit material. Primarily, these complaints are generated by individual parents, although on occasion they can come from teachers, administrators,^[8] or organizations like the Parents’ Rights in Education group that was responsible for sweeping bans of LGBT books in 1997 Calgary.^[9] That being said, the definition of what is or is not explicit often reveals biases.^[8] Obscenity is a difficult term to define concretely, so the application of the law depends upon whether or not the material questioned would offend community standards.^[9] To be clear, that means community standards of the nation as a whole, not the standards of the community that the book was written for. Because of this, the removal of books tends to show prejudice. Where a book containing a chaste relationship between a straight couple is unlikely to raise any eyebrows, if that couple is gay the book is far more likely to offend the community.^[7]

The most prominent example of a school board ban happened in Surrey BC in 2003, where two teachers were “accused of promulgating a gay agenda” because they wanted to teach using picture books that included same-sex couples. The Surrey school board banned the three books (“One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads”, “Belinda’s Bouquet”, and “Asha’s Mums”) originally on the grounds that they might contradict the religious beliefs of the students’ families. However, as the conversation continued they expounded that they believed homosexuality was inherently inappropriate for young children. Due to the religious nature of their reasoning, this decision was tried before the Supreme Court. The court overturned the ban 7-2, on the argument that certain kinds of families may not be excluded to make others feel more comfortable. In her comments about the case Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote “Tolerance is always age appropriate”.^[4]

This began the tradition of preventing certain “books and drawings of an immoral or indecent character” from entering Canada. This was two decades before Canada gained self-governance.^[1]

The War Measures Act was introduced in August 1914 to obstruct Canadians from getting information about WWI. This act was used to prevent the publication and sale of both books and newspapers (as well as non-literary publications) that had been outlawed. Should an individual decide to print censored material anyways, they would be presumed guilty until proven innocent and could be subject to a fine and/or jail time. The suitability of these materials was primarily determined by Chief Censor Ernest Chambers, who then sought out approval from the secretary of state and postmaster general.^[3] In 1919 the War Measures Act was expanded in an attempt to prevent the spread of socialism. This resulted in the prohibition of many leftist publications including The Western Clarion. Later that same year section 98 went into effect, prohibiting all materials that endorsed violent protest methods.^[1]

Quebec put its Padlock Law into place in 1937, in a further attempt to quell the spread of communism. This law gave prosecutors the power to arrest any person advocating for communism in any format. Although this law was not strictly targeted at literary censorship, it did make it illegal to print leftist materials, and officials were empowered to shut down printing houses which had the effect of banning a number of publications. The Padlock Law remained in place until 1957.^[1]

In 1939 the War Measures Act was put back into effect and the Defense of Canada Regulations were created. However, the restrictions provided were less strict than they were in the First World War and often relied on cooperation from editors to emphasize patriotic viewpoints. That being said approximately 600 publications were banned, primarily those with leftist sympathies or that could be perceived to betray military secrets.^[1]

Throughout the 1940s and 50s, many countries in the Western world began to devote their attentions to the threat of moral degradation from comic books, and Canada was no exception. In British Columbia, outrage reached a fever pitch in 1948 when two children shot a passing motorist. The opinion of the Judge in this case, as published by the Peace River Block News, was that the actions of these boys were to be blamed on the influence of comic books that glorify criminal activities. Following this trial the Fulton Bill, formally known as Bill 10 of the 21st Canadian Parliament, was introduced in 1949 by Parliament Member Davie Fulton. This bill included crime comics under the definition of obscene materials and remained in effect until December 2018.

In 1954, the same year that the US Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency concluded that comic books were a moral evil, The Advisory Board on Objectionable Publications (ABOP) was formed in Alberta. The goal of ABOP was to weed out obscene materials from the province (focusing on comic books and magazines). The board removed over 20% of periodicals from sale but was dissolved in 1976, mostly due to complaints over the secrecy of their process.^[10]

Put into place in 1982, the charter gives all Canadians the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.^[5] The implementation of such protections at a constitutional level resulted in a marked decrease in banning books.^[1]

However, Section 1 states that the charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. This section can be used to undermine other freedoms, so the charter does not entirely prevent censorship, but it does make it less common.^[1]

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium, a gay and lesbian bookstore in Vancouver, continually had books seized at the border under accusations of obscenity. The bookstore alleged that the customs regulations that allowed so-called obscene materials to be detained violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.^[7] Specifically, section 2(b) which provides “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication” and section 15 which establishes “equal benefit of the law without discrimination”.^[5] In Justice Smith’s 1996 ruling Little Sisters won only a partial victory. The court ruled that customs officials had applied the law unfairly when they targeted the bookstore due to its queer content and that some of the materials detained had not been obscene. However, Justice Smith did not believe that the law itself was unfair, only the way it was enforced in this specific case.^[7] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld the decision, in December 2000. However, the law was revised so the responsibility to prove obscenity was now placed on the customs authorities. As opposed to importers having to prove that materials were not obscene.^[11]