I have been debating whether I should follow through with my intention to discuss here on my blog the topic of free speech/hate speech in Canada. My dilemma has to do with both the complexity (in terms of the rules, regulations, laws, procedures, etc.) and heated nature of the issue. While I've investigated the Canadian Human Rights Act, I am by no means an expert on it, nor am I fluent in the functions of the various human rights commissions in this country, so if I get something wrong, please set me straight. Also, as I said, I recognize that the idea of hatred is inflammatory in so much as it arouses strong emotion. I want to be very clear that, while I've posted the link to Mike Steyn's article (yes, THE article) and the links to both his and Ezra Levant's blogs, I've done so only to encourage exploration and understanding and not because I share their opinions.
So, the story is this: Maclean's magazine published an excerpt of Mike Steyn's book America Alone in which he, more or less, argues that the end of the world as we know it is nigh as changing demographics result in the recession of western liberalism (that's classic liberalism folks, Steyn is a right-winger) and the spread of Islam. Consequently, Maclean's is up against the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and faces a variety of punishments should it be found guilty of spreading hate, not least of which involves (essentially) censorship of its further publications. While the complaint made to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is said to have been in response to Maclean's refusal to print a rebuttal to Steyn's article, what seems to be at issue in the proceedings is whether or not the article exposed the Muslim community to hatred.
Now, I've read this article and I encourage you to read it as well. After having digested its contents, my opinion is that it is a poorly written argument which has the power to offend and, while I don't agree that it is hateful (my mother always told me to be careful with the word hate), its tone is certainly contemptuous. Bottom line is, I found it to be distasteful, yes, but do I think that Maclean's should have exercised restraint and never given Steyn's words their space? No, not for a second.
Canada is a liberal democracy, for which most of us, I believe, are grateful. As such, we have a number of protected rights one of which, as it is expressly written in our constitution, is freedom of expression and, with it, freedom of the press. We are now seeing the inability for these freedoms to coexist with the prohibition of hate messages. While I am a BIG proponent of human rights and I don't like, and quite frankly have a hard time understanding, intolerance, I give primacy to the necessity of a free marketplace of ideas.
I leave it here, conscious of the length of this post and wishing not to bore my audience (if I have one), with the promise to follow up soon. . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First of all, great post! I was interested reading it the entire way through and you even convinced me to read Steyn's article all the way through (now, THAT was a long article!)
After reading your post, I want you to know I agree with you on all of your points. Steyn's article was very poorly written and he could have made his point in a much more tasteful manner. However, I do not consider it a "hate" article. I can see where it would highly offend people, especially Muslims, but I also use the word "hate" sparingly and do not believe this article should be classified as such.
People should be entitled to free speech because it is important not to limit anyone from expressing their beliefs and opinions. All of us have the ability to judge others' words and actions and take from them what we choose. Therefore, though some people express their opinions in a horrible way, the rest of us have the option to let what they say affect us or we can simply turn the other cheek and move on.
I look forward to reading more of your posts :)
Fantastic post- an issue that must be discussed at length.
With regard to the specific issue of free speech vs. hate speech, I believe it boils down to rights vs. privileges, and semantics. I am a staunch supporter of free speech as well as the the anti hate-speech legislation . Although seemingly irreconcilable, the banning of hate speech actually complements free speech.
As a citizen of this state, you are awarded certain rights, amongst them freedom of speech. A literal interpretation of this right would suggest an ability to say whatever, whenever, however. Yet, freedom in the form of rights is not literal freedom; it is a regulated freedom. Why? Because the very stability which liberal democracies pride themselves in depends on it.
As with everything in life, there are consequences to our ideas. When ideas promote hate, it can lead to the destructive forces witnessed in the Rwanda, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, the Holocaust , and other utterly deplorable moments and movements in history.
One may argue that these are extreme cases, but we must understand that they did not appear over night; they developed gradually through an ever present complacency (in some cases, complicity) and appeasement. There is a strong case to be made for curtailing hate speech in Canada- there is no positive consequence, no measure of value added to a society through hate-mongering.
I agree with Erin that no one should "limit anyone from expressing their beliefs and opinions." However, I strongly believe that the nature of free speech changes with the promotion of hate. Our freedoms should not be allowed to trump that of others; freedom of speech should not threaten the right to the security of the person.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 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."
It'll be cold day in hell before the incitement and promotion of hate can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. As long as these limits set out by the Charter are adhered to, then perhaps censorship can actually be seen as promoting democracy rather than challenging it.
Thanks for your response Erin and David. David, the problem that I have is in the subjectivity of it all. What is hate, really, but an abstract idea? And what you find hateful might differ greatly from that which I find hateful. And even if we both agree that something is hateful, and we don't like it, does that necessitate our silencing it? Can't we say, "so-and-so is an idiot" and disregard that person's opinion, while still allowing him or her to voice it? I agree that words can be harmful- I've been hurt by what others have said many times before - but I'm not sure hurt feelings justify the curtailing of free speech?
I think also, we need to be careful in distinguishing between speech which offends and speech which incites harmful behaviour. I have a hard time connecting Steyn's article to Rwanda or Cambodia. Nowhere is Steyn advocating that we "take care of the cockroaches."
I think in today's society there is a tendency to minimize our ability to think critically and rationalize. I return always to John Stuart Mill's thoughts here. It is sometimes important for us to come up against opposing viewpoints, so that we can either learn something new in finding that our viewpoint was flawed and someone else has it better, or be reminded of why we hold the viewpoint that we do, because we've had to reflect upon our position and our reasons for it.
I also am really uncomfortable with the idea that someone else out there knows better than I what is appropriate for me to see or hear. We must remember that those people making such decisions are fallible human beings, no more or less than you and I. To entrust some higher authority to censor the information, or even useless opinions that come our way, I think brings us eerily close to an Orwellian State.
Post a Comment