Killing the Consensus
Jonathan Kay has a first rate piece up at the National Post’s Full Comment on how the Jewish community in Canada has dealt with free speech and hate speech. Go read it. But, before you do, a couple of thoughts.
The chilling effects of the Canadian and provincial Human Rights Code’s attempts to regulate speech go well beyond speech dealing with Jews or Muslims. In essence, they give the “offended” the right to take the conversation right off the table.
As my socon readers know to their pain, I am a huge supporter of same sex marriage and have been right from the go. But that does not for an instant mean that I think people should be prevented from criticizing SSM or homosexuality in general. And, realistically, that is one of the chilling effects of s.13 and its provincial cousins.
I also believe very strongly that we need to have a serious debate about immigration in Canada. Is it a good idea in general? Should the current system be restructured? Does it make sense to import people from third world nations which share few if any Canadian values? How do we avoid the “no-go” problems of England, the rioting “youths” of Denmark and France? Should we ever allow Islamists entry?
But there is a problem with such a debate: under the current law suggesting, for example, a moratorium on immigration from Islamic nations or Jamaica might get the writer hauled before a HRC.
Indeed, any suggestion that a particular minority is anything other than the greatest thing since sliced falafal runs the risk of attracting a s.13 complaint.
A few weeks ago, Mike Brock, made the very intelligent observation “Democracy is not a means by which to provide for free speech. Free speech is a means by which to provide for democracy.”
Where a law is on the books which restricts free speech the essential conversations of democracy are stilted or silenced. Now, the price for free speech is that the haters and the loonies and even the people at Rabble get to speak too. Happily, genuinely free speech will expose the bankruptcy of their ideas.
Update: Welcome Markists! You’ll be delighted to know you have arrived at the site of a man whom the liar Kinsella refers to as a Steyn Saladin. I am, of course, thrilled by the invective but wonder if I really have to rule “Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Hejaz, and Yemen” and reconquer Jerusalem from the Crusaders in the name of Steyn. Kinsella’s idea of an insult sounds more like very hard work to me.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:32 am
OK I’ll start us off: Should we ever allow Islamists entry?
February 24th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Not to mention that in some ways, democracy itself is illiberal.
A true libertarianism must be as suspicious of democratic tyranny as of autocratic tyranny.
In this case, the old “if everyone jumped off a cliff…” applies.
Even if 99.99% of people think free speech should be done away with, does this democratic judgement make it right?
We place too much value of democracy, and not enough on liberty.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“But that does not for an instant mean that I think people should be prevented from criticizing SSM or homosexuality in general. And, realistically, that is one of the chilling effects of s.13 and its provincial cousins.”
How is it that you fail to grasp that criticism is not the same as calling all homsexuals terrorists. Without getting into the debate of the value of the impugned legislation, you consistently miss the point and thus make fallacious arguments. The legislation does not impact constructive criticism that is conveyed in a well-informed, academic manner. It attempts to safeguard against rhetoric espoused with a broad and discriminatory brush. Therefore, expressing one’s opinion with respect to Muslims, homosexuals or any other minority groups is permissable as long as it is done for the purpose of discourse and not to obviously incite hate through overgeneralization, fear-mongering and half-truths.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Kay’s article failed to mention that Doug Collins was the first media/Journalist victimized by CJC acting through it’s HRC arm…Levant and Steyn are not the first media to be attacked by CHRC being used as a tiil to silence critics of ethnic political pressure NGOs.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:22 am
lewis: Your complaint about generalizations would be more effective if you were not doing the same thing. You repeat the same old lines about not all muslims being terrorists: I don’t know of any credible source that has stated or implied that they are. I’ve read Steyn’s book (in fact I read it for the second time after all the HRC stuff started, just to refresh my memory), and he does not even begin to imply that. He does definitely say that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that its radical element is increasingly being exported throughout the world, but interestingly none of his detractors take issue with his data: they seek only to shut him and others who might agree with him up. Read any of the stuff by the “Osgoode Hall 4”, for example the piece in todays gazette: Steyn’s words are deliberately mis-stated, printed out of context or otherwise rearranged to show maximum disdain for muslims, never mind that many of the offending quotes were actually uttered by muslims around the world. There’s a great deal of talk about “starting the dialouge” about “Islamophobia”: I concur with Hirsi Ali: there is no real Islamophobia. What you are seeing and hearing is people who are tired of being told they are not allowed to criticize any element of another religion, preference or culture; tired of hearing cries like “Islamophobia” before the dust has settled on a terror attack by avowed Islamists; tired of seeing their tax dollars going to misnamed “human rights” comissions every time someone takes offense at something or other. Despite all the complaining about negative muslim stereotypes, it is the overwhelming silence of moderate muslims on the negative manifestations of Islam that causes, by far, the greatest harm to their cause.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Peter Entz: To make a long post short, Steyn states, “not all Muslims are terrorists—though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists—though enough of them share their basic objectives.”
I agree he doesn’t say all Muslims, but most or enough of them gets the same basic point across and is clearly an overgeneralization, expecially when espousing this view about Canada and Torontonians in particular.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:20 am
One ought to consider well whether freedom of speech is a thing worth killing for.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:49 am
lewis: to be honest, I don’t know enough muslims to dispute your claim… but i will reiterate my main point: the people best qualified to speak out against radical Islam and its fruits are muslims who recognize the negative side and are not afraid to voice their concerns, and alas we do not hear nearly enough from them…on the contrary people like Hirsi Ali et al are defamed as infidels and targeted for asassination, ... again, it’s very easy to lift lines from the book and make it appear what it’s not..I’ve watched youtube clips from channel 4 in the U.K. of footage from a reporter who infiltrated a radical mosque, and though I’d like to believe there are none like it in Canada, I am not confident of that. I can`t say it often enough: the condemnation of radical Islam must come from Muslims. Anyone outside the faith who criticizes is brushed off as Islamophobic.
Krazilec: what the heck are you talking about
February 25th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Peter Entz: I am not disputing that point. In both my posts my issue is the language and use of generalizations that are harmful, unnecessary and actually counterproductive.
Whether you know enough Muslims or not is irrelevant; that is not a claim that anyone can make with any factual accuracy.
Moreover, rhetoric as such detracts from the legitimacy and luster of the anti-radical message and does nothing for people on both sides of the coin. People from all walks of life and across the entire political spectrum are more receptive to sound academic writing compared to flowery and misleading reads. Although the two not need be mutually exclusive. To summarize and reiterate my point, nearly all the potential benefits are lost when messages are conveyed in such an unnecessary manner and if I was a person that had imminent concerns with respect to radical Islam I would be a little peeved as my advocates are doing a horrible job extolling this message. At the same time, it is causing harm and offence, which may or may not be a concern, but is also counter-productive as it tares at the heart strings of many sympathizers who in turn defend the people in question.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Lewis – I don’t see that the effectiveness (or offensiveness) of someone’s arguments are a justification for legislative restrictions on their ability to make them – but that is what I would be a little peeved as my advocates are doing a horrible job extolling this message and At the same time, it is causing harm and offence, which… is also counter-productive. Both may be true – but both are equally irrelevant.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Peter Entz: If you stayed focused on the flow of the conversation you will inevitably note that my discussion began by suggesting that there is a large gap between important political discourse and purposively articulate slander enmeshed with seemingly valuable arguments. Thus, my last point was illuminating the meritless value of the latter whilst explaining how it can be easily distinguished from legitimate free speech.
Moreover, I specifically stated that I was not engaging in a evaluative debate over the legislation itself, but disabusing the misconception permeating through much of the blogosphere that the HRC complaints are censoring speech of value.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Lewis, what the Hell is “speech of value”? Who decides?
Free speech means exactly that, the ability to speak freely. It does not protect speech of value; rather it protects speech unless and until that speech actually and directly calls for violence.
How hard is that for you to grasp?
February 26th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Parliamentary committees, the law and other select thinktanks decide this matter, thank god not people like yourself.
I don’t follow your, “rather it protects speech unless and until that speech actually and directly calls for violence.” Sorry what does, oh, I get it, your two cent rant is only supposed to appear to be coherent. In any case, I’ll presume you are trying to say that laws should be protecting speech until this extent.
The problem I have with this is the notion that until the product of certain speech is manifesting itself through violence it should always be protected. This is troublesome. For one, I think there should be consistency within the law, the social atmosphere in one period may not be particuarly amenable to that conduct and therefore speech that would normally elicit violence will not have that result. Yet, perhaps in a different decade, the very same words may stir up genocidal ideologies due to a mulitplicity of factors set in place and then, according to you, we should apply the rule of law.
Second, overt discrimination is a thing of the past. Today racism and bigotry are in subtle forms and less easily detectable; it is what social psychologists have termed aversive racism. This is a result of harbouring negative associations about target groups that will then be transformed into discrimination in amibiguous and non-blatant circumstances. This could be in the treatment of groups over the phone, in policy-making, hiring practices etc. These practices are done only when they can be somewhat justified or attributed to other factors. And, they are a result of priming negative concepts or hold discriminatory views, for many reasons, of targeted groups.
These acts can be far more detrimental and far-reaching to the physical and social well-being of members of society then isolated acts of violence.
Finally, I easily grasp your argument but fail to see the true merit within it. Now, it is time for you to imbibe my monologue, at least for the beneficial aspect of free speech. However, this time at least try and reasonably and openly try and understand this point of view.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
but disabusing the misconception permeating through much of the blogosphere that the HRC complaints are censoring speech of value
Lewis – to the contrary, I thought the publication of the Mohammed cartoons (one of the HRC complaints, although Alberta’s Commission, not Federal) was “speech of value.” I suppose that’s why free speech is important; because people can have good-faith disagreements about just what constitutes “valuable” or “legitimate” speech.
...there is a large gap between important political discourse and purposively articulate slander enmeshed with seemingly valuable arguments.
I think that gap is smaller than you suppose. We have laws (flawed as they might be) to deal with slander; if they need improvement, then by all means go to it. I am not sure how you wish to distinguish between “valid” and merely “seemingly valid” arguments (most thought police use the simple criteria of whether the argument supports the current orthodoxy) – but I can imagine angels on the head of a pin being a trivial discussion by comparison.
...whilst explaining how it can be easily distinguished from legitimate free speech. (my emphasis)
Do tell. I find that to be an incredibly blurry line – so I err on the side of not allowing governments to draw it.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:31 am
DCardno: I agree that the Mohammad cartoons had some probative value and although published with pernicious intentions they should not be censored; perhaps that is why the complaint has been dropped. However, when media outlets consistently publish slanderous diatribes and present them as fact this will inevitably lead to egregious consequences for the community in question.
The impact of the media on public perception has been well documented by various objective research centres. This fact is indisputable. Moreover, free speech is not an inalienable right that is guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution simply because Canada values gossip and chit-chat. There is underlying rationales for the entrenchment of this right. So, whatever falls outside the list of underlying principles that safeguard this privilege should not receive the same protection. At this time, government, with the assistance of various committees and institutions should be the ones drawing this line.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:23 am
There is underlying rationales for the entrenchment of this right. So, whatever falls outside the list of underlying principles that safeguard this privilege should not receive the same protection
That’s an assertion, Lewis, not a fact. The Charter does not ennumerate a rationale for the guarantee of free speech as a ‘fundamental freedom’ – it simply states that it is a fundamental freedom. The practical reason may well be that free expression confers all sorts of benefits on a society – on the other hand, the justification may simply be that there is no good reason to allow the Government of Canada to subject Canadian citizens to a restriction on their speech, and so they are prohibited from doing so. Either way it offers no guidance on “good” versus “pernicious” speech. As a practical matter, the value of the former is so high, the difficulty of differentiating the two so large, and the danger of the latter so over-estimated that simply allowing all speech is the only reasonable approach.
the Mohammad cartoons…should not be censored; perhaps that is why the complaint has been dropped.
According to the Imam’s withdrawal, it seemed to me more like he was tired of people calling him an asshole, and uncomfortable with the Canadian public learning the accuracy of that description.
...when media outlets consistently publish slanderous diatribes and present them as fact this will inevitably lead to egregious consequences for the community in question.
There is a risk that the media will distort or mis-represent any number of things: for instance, at one time it was recieved wisdom in the Canadian media establishment that Paul Martin was a determined, dynamic, forceful politician. This misimpression was successfully conveyed to the Canadian electorate – would your solution be to ban political reporting outright, or simply to subject it to editorial control by the government? The remedy for inaccurate speech is more and better speech. The remedy for slander (if it is slander, and not just an uncomfortable opinion) is a suit for defamation to gain redress. The remedy for hurt feelings is to grow a thicker skin.
At this time, government, with the assistance of various committees and institutions should be the ones drawing this line.
Why? Why not the Catholic Church, or the Church of Scientology, or David Suzuki? Why not me (in fact, I like the sounds of that…) or Ezra Levant? I did not elect a government to infringe on my fundamental rights, no matter how that may save my fellow citizens from hurt feelings or aggravation. In particular, I did not elect a government to sub-contract that assault on my freedom to any “committees and institutions.” I am not willing to have anyone “draw the line” – as it is a line that simply does not need to be drawn.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Actually, no, it’s a fact. There is an argument that the crafters of the Charter didn’t have a defined rationale for including freedom of speech in the Charter. However, if you take a Supreme Court Case you will easily notice that: 1) the Court takes a purposive approach when examining legislation, including the Charter, which means they look at the purpose of the legislation when making judgments; 2) they have defined approaches of ruling on s. 2 cases which in effect elucidates what is acceptable speech; 3) the Court has discussed what the purpose of having this right on numerous accounts, in detail in R. v. Keegstra.