An interesting debate is underway in Ottawa, and it's significance is hard to overstate.
http://www.canada.com/news/Human+Rights+Commission+challenged+over+investigative+powers/2069087/story.html
The entirety of the questioning of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn has been posted to Youtube, so one can check it out if one is so inclined. Regardless of the their political inclinations, they both have a significant grievance with the Canadian Human Rights Commission which has investigated them: Levant famously reprinted the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed in his now no-longer-in-print Western Standard, while Steyn's MacLean's article on tolerance landed him in hot water with the commission.
As an aside, the free speech debate even came up at U of A Law last year, when a clever and hilarious double entendre by the women's rugby team landed them in hot water with person(s) on the Faculty.
In Ottawa, R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, has found its way into the debate, and it is worth examining the minority's judgement. It is also important to note that the questioning yesterday dealt with two different kinds of hate provisions, namely, those of the Criminal Code and those of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the former of which were the primary focus of Keegstra and the latter of which were the primary focus of yesterday's discussion.
In her dissent in Keegstra, McLachlin J. writes the following at para. 230:
“I turn then to the question of whether the expression here at issue falls within the sphere of conduct protected by the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter. As this Court has repeatedly affirmed, the content of a statement cannot deprive it of the protection accorded by s. 2(b), no matter how offensive it may be. The content of Mr. Keegstra's statements was offensive and demeaning in the extreme; nevertheless, on the principles affirmed by this Court, that alone would appear not to deprive them of the protection guaranteed by the Charter.”
In addressing the arguments of the Crown, McLachlin notes that Keegstra's comments did not fulfill the requirement of violence that would bring them under the purview of the Criminal Code, that the scope of s. 2(b) should not be diminished by s. 15, and that the Criminal Code's hate speech provisions did not operate to advance Canada's multiculturalism pursuant to s. 27 of the Charter. With regard to s. 27, she writes what I think is the most important argument that can be made for free speech: “cut[ting] back the protection afforded by s. 2(b) risks undercutting the fundamental freedom with no guarantee of a tangible benefit in return.” Her arguments are lucid and important.
Indeed, it seems that her reading of s. 2(b) conforms in some way with John Stuart Mill's argument in his essay On Liberty:
“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise.” [emphasis added]
What, then, would we do with all this free speech?
“I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry.” – John Cage
What, then, might one do if one were inclined towards censorship?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natgeo_censorship.jpg





Recent Comments