Whither freedom of speech
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
That was then.
This is 2008. In the 21st century, freedom of speech, long revered as the cornerstone of Western liberal democracy, is being slowly but consistently eroded worldwide. And I’m not referring to Russia, China, or the Middle East, where freedom of speech is well-known to be limited. No, this new campaign against free expression is increasingly showing up in places once thought to be paragons of liberal democracy — Western Europe and even Canada.
In Canada, the government has set up rather unfortunately named quasi-judicial “Human Rights Tribunals” in each province. Established under Canada’s Human Rights Code, the alleged purpose of the tribunal is “accepting, screening, mediating and adjudicating human rights complaints.” Human rights violations under the Canadian Human Rights code include “hate crimes,” which apparently includes any statement that could plausibly cause a group to “be exposed to hatred or contempt.” (Section 7.1, to be exact.)
The tribunal follows virtually no standards of legal jurisprudence. There are no established rules of evidence — the three panel members may admit or reject the admission of evidence on a whim. There is no due process. Defendants are not allowed to testify on their own behalf.
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is now hearing a case that has been brought against Canada’s Maclean’smagazine for publishing an excerpt from renowned British-American columnist Mark Steyn’s most recent book, America Alone.The excerpt in question is alleged by Faisal Joseph, the lawyer representing the complainants, to expose Muslims to “hatred and contempt.” Joseph claims to have filed the complaint “on behalf of all the Muslim residents of the province of British Columbia,” who he claims were “offended” by alleged anti-Muslim sentiments in Steyn’s piece.
This is, of course, ridiculous — no Canadian Muslims were polled or canvassed prior to the case. In fact, there are only two named complainants: Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) president Mohammed elMasry, of Ontario, and Naiyer Habib, who recently moved from Saskatchewan to B.C. CIC spokesman Khurrum Awan has said he felt “personally victimized” by Steyn’s piece. The CIC wants the Tribunal to “order” Maclean’s to publish a lengthy five-page letter to the editor they wrote that criticizes Steyn’s piece.
I have read America Alone, and in my educated opinion the book contains no offensive or anti-Muslim statements. The defendants’ alleged “evidence” in this case is a number of anonymous anti-Muslim blog postings on unrelated web sites which they have unsuccessfully attempted to tie to Steyn’s book.
What is most disturbing about this whole fiasco is the attempt to have a government tribunal dictate what a private publication should and should not print — in effect, to have control over its content. That level of censorship is something you might expect to find in a totalitarian state.
But this is no isolated case. Authorities in Scandinavia closed down a website for fear it would “offend” Muslims. A story this week in London’s Telegraph described two Christian preachers who were told by a police community support officer to stop handing out leaflets about Christianity in a Muslim-majority neighborhood of Birmingham, UK, or face arrest on “hate crimes” charges.
A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned.
I fail to see how peacefully distributing leaflets about Christianity constitutes a “hate crime.” In most Muslim nations, proselytizing is illegal. In fact, while I was in Jordan, a group of Baptist missionaries was deported for doing just that. But in Britain?
Maybe it shouldn’t be so shocking. Recently, Muslim-majority areas in Europe are becoming increasingly hostile to free speech, especially religious speech, that “threatens” Islam in any way. Certain viewpoints about Islam should apparently be considered “off-limits” for public discussion and debate.
This is a dangerous threat to Western democratic society as we know it. It stands in direct conflict with the fundamental Enlightenment principles of rational argument, skepticism, and critical thinking. Rather than offer their own counter-arguments and provide evidence that contradicts the claims of critics who write or say things critical of Islam, the trend in Western Europe and Canada is to get such points of view labeled as “hate speech” and banned from public discourse.
In fact, America alone remains one of the last places on earth where the notion of freedom of speech is still cherished and essentially undiluted — hence the title and one of the major points of Steyn’s book. Dean Steacy, the principal “anti-hate” investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission put it succinctly:
MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?
MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.
MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.
MR. STEACY: It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.
Indeed.
Greetings from Canada’s Left Coast aka Vancouver. I’m ecstatic that you’re following this and beginning to get an appreciation that not all is rosy north of the 49th Parallel!
There one thing I’d like to add to your already excellent article: A defendant at one of these “Human Rights” Tribunals (we up here prefer the term “Kangaroo Courts”) is not allowed to use … wait for it … is not allowed to use The Truth or Facts as a defense. They are irrelevant in front of these quasi-judicial bodies. For if you are found to have offended someone then you are guilty.
Welcome to British Columbia in 2008. Incidentally, we’re hosting the Winter Olympics in February 2010. If you care to share your thoughts with our politicians about visiting such a jurisdiction if such laws are still in place, then please do!
“…the trend in Western Europe and Canada is to get such points of view labeled as “hate speech” and banned from public discourse.”
Once a label is attached to speech, the results are quick and predictable.
“In fact, America alone remains one of the last places on earth where the notion of freedom of speech is still cherished and essentially undiluted…”
Say what? The trend in America is to label a person, and then deny them rights, such as free speech, based on said label. States have found a way to circumvent “standards of legal jurisprudence” by forcing citizens to register under a civil procedure for expanding offenses. Once labeled, the legal conduct of such registrants becomes restricted, or criminalized, including free speech. This determination is made not by a kangaroo court, but a legislative body.
Is there any difference between Canada’s censoring of labeled speech, and the U.S. censoring of labeled speakers?
I hope freedom of speech in the USA is not threatened by the reenactment of the ‘fairness doctrine’ which is rumored to resurface once the democratic party is in control! I’m sure the PD will do all that it can to shoot down this infringement on freedom of speech.
There have always been certain “tests” for one’s committment to the principle of “Freedom of Speech”.
One is your willingness to exercise it and willingness to take on the responsiblities such an exercise may entail.
Another is your willingness to allow the other party the same freedom.
Civility in such an exercise is desirable, but not a requirement. However, attempts to enforce civility, or through an implied threat, to limit the type, time and place of speech and writing, is censorship.
Hate speech is usually speech which encourages acts of discrimination and violence towards a specific person or group. Hate speech needs to be opposed at all points. The way to oppose it is through the full exercise of the Freedom of Speech. Groups offended by what someone has said about them have the right to present their opposition. They do not have the right to suppress the other.
Mr. Steacy is wrong about this being an “American concept”. He needs to go back to school and read up on the Death of Socrates, or the Sermon on the Mount, or any of ther Hebrew Prophets, the list is quite long.
Thanks Mr. Mayer. This is one of the best short take articles I’ve read on this issue from the US or Canada. Most of the media here in Canada have been very very slow to report on this assault on free speech going on at federal and provincial human rights commissions/tribunals. One wonders whether the liberal establishment is threatened by the sharp talk of a Mark Steyn or just wants to protect the dear human rights code they’ve coddled for so long at arms length. How tenuous their reasoning may soon be proven to be when their cherished opinion become the focus of the very same censors at a later date. We all suffer as a result. When offensive views are now banned and punished for fear that they ‘may’ provoke hate or violence in or to a minority group there will be a cultural darkness and a collective slide to resigned sadness, we’ll only dream of what freedom could have meant. The architect of society in Canada have to somehow admit that we don’t need this devastating infringement on free speech and reporting.
The death of free speech in Canada by way of “human Rights Tribunals” should be followed VERY closely in other Western countries that still retain the concept as a fundemental right of free citizens, namely, the USA. Hate Speech codes are and will be used to silence people that the state and it’s many special intrest pressure groups don’t like. In Canada triokas (ala the Soviet Union) can and do crush citizens that don’t have the recources and connections that high profile journalists like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant possess. In effect, Christian preachers, among many others, have been rendered victims of state opppression. In one case a Christian pastor, a Rev. Steven Boission, has been ruined financialy, forced to publish a recantation of his sincere religious faith in the local newspaper(again something that the Soviet Union required of it’s political prisoners after they were crushed). Even more sickening he is forbidden-FOREVER-to say, write (even in private emails), or publish ANYTHING that certain gay-rights pressure groups consider “offensive” to themselves. The complaintant is an anti-Christian activists named Darren Lund, whom the Commisar that issued the ruling, a divorce lawyer hack appointed by the conservative (!) goverment of the province. As a Canadian this is not only shameful, but fightening. And it is spreading. So I urge Americnas to be vigilant. It could happen in your country too—especialy if the victory of the hard-left in November happens as I faer it will.
I attended a small demonstration at the Vancouver Marsupial Court - 800 Hornby Street - where the Macleans Magazine show trial was getting underway on 2 June, 2008. Despite the fact that the Macleans article in question told the truth, constituted fair comment on current events and harmed nobody it is a forgone conclusion that Macleans will be convicted. Some have compared this Kangaroo Court to the Spanish Inquisition but that is totally unfair - to the Inquisition.
I am afraid that Canada is becoming less and less a country of freedom and increasingly a country of fear under the guise of tolerance. I come to the conclusion that there is a lack of leadership in the free West. Leadership to defend our freedom on behalf of us and our children. The political elites governing Western countries are themselves governed by fear. Fear of facing the truth. Fear of letting go the still prevalent ideology of cultural relativism. Fear of fighting for freedom of speech, particularly when the message expresses an inconvenient truth or is delivered by somebody with a critical or satirical view of Islam. Our freedom is being bargained away.
A comment on the National Post, Canada’s newspaper.
“A call to action, folks. Here is a text I have composed, and which I invite you to copy and circulate:
The undersigned call upon the academic world and professional associations to boycott Canada as a site for scholarly and professional meetings. We call upon the world to take note that research, press, and individual freedoms in Canada, although recognized in the written constitution, are under attack by extra-legal, bureaucratic bodies known as Human Rights Commissions. Said commissions have been enacted at the federal and provincial levels. Challenges to their constitutionality have not been sustained by the currently sitting Supreme Court of Canada.
These bodies are now prosecuting writers and publishers as they see fit, resulting in legal sanctions against the convicted. The conviction rate, at the date of this appeal, is 100%. The risk is therefore demonstrated, that you can be guilty of a crime of opinion, if you utter or debate ideas which displease mandated ideologues or protected identity groups. Consequently, Canada is no longer a forum for the free, reasoned, and candid exchange of ideas, data, or research.
In the latest attack against press and academic freedom, a tribunal in Vancouver, in the week of June 2-5, 2008, was convened by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. This tribunal heard complaints against the country’s oldest news magazine, the venerable Macleans magazine, which published an article by Mark Steyn documenting the growing influence of Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. Already, in earlier action, attempts had been made to force Macleans to publish a “response” by a group of complainants. During the above tribunal, norms of evidentiary admissibility, due process, definitions of expertise, and other fair-trial concepts were not in force, and the commissioners were untrained and unscreened for prior biases. In every respect, this tribunal was an affront to individual rights, and an echo of totalitarianism.
Therefore are you asked to avoid Canada in the coming period. If you were planning to hold or attend a conference in Canada, choose a freer jurisdiction. Finally, it is suggested that you advise your Canadian colleagues and Canadian authorities of the reasons for your actions. “
Winston Churchill shrewdly observed that “When you have a great deal of free speech you are bound to have a certain amount of foolish speech.” This has always struck me as the sanest and best description of “Freedom of Speech.” Churchill’s point was (I believe) that free expression is based on genuine toleration and moral generosity by persons of all political persuasions within a society. The same level of tolerance and generosity must be accorded to those of opposing (even bizarre) views that you would expect for your own. I had always, rather lazily, thought that Canada was firmly within that tradition.(Probably because so many Canadians are always lauding themselves for their cosmopolitanism while sniffily dismissing U.S. attitudes as “hateful.”)
As a result I have been facinated and appalled by the actions of the various Canadian “Human Rigths Tribunals” against Maclean’s and Mark Steyn. The mere presence of such tribunals is a direct challenge to the entire idea of free expression. What is most shocking however is the way in which many. if not most, Candian academics, writers, lawyers, college students and government officials seem to see nothing sinister or even troubling about such agencies. Has Canada really decided to surrender one of the bedrock freedoms of a truly “liberal” society to a group of faceless, untrained and biased bureaucrats? Is this really what Canadian citizens want when it comes to free speech and the exchange of ideas? It is all very depressing and my gut tells me that this is a portent of more to come. Whatever happens in the Macleans case these tribunals will not go away and will not be reformed. I am sure that American progressives would like nothing better than to set up similar Orwellian courts in the U.S. to fully insure that speech that they they deem “hateful” is censored and controlled.
This sounds an awful lot like American Universities. It has already started there, just like PC started twenty years ago. Bring back the old days when hate speech in Canada was something like “the Toronto Maple Leafs stink”. Now that was hate, when uttered by a Montreal Canadians fan. People who tolerate this deserve it. I expect if Barak F. Obama wins this fall, new standards of “acceptable” means of criticizing the president will be ushered in. I am not changing. Ever.