Troll around the left-end of the Canadian blogosphere and browse the posts on Steyn, Levant and their investigation and prosecution by Canada’s Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. For the most part what you’ll find is a bunch of cheerleaders for the cops.
Their arguments range from the ’sophist’icated Jason Cherniak:
As a matter of principle, I support this law [subsection 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act]. Hate messages should not be protected expression. Indeed, they are an attempt to silence the free expression of others by removing their individuality. At its heart, I believe that freedom of expression, and the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is about protecting the individual. People who attempt to use their individual rights to remove the individual rights of others should not be surprised when they end up on the wrong side of the law.
To the unintentionally insightful Omar Soliman:
Amidst the alarmist [Anti-HRC | Pro-Free Speech] rhetoric is a simple, overlooked fact: The libertarian view of free speech is a distinctly American political tradition, not exactly a Canadian one. And even then, Thomas Jefferson, who as the author of the Declaration of Independence has perhaps a slightly more prominent claim to liberty than Levant and gang, believed that the press should be “responsible for abuse of an unrestrained freedom to publish.”
Unfortunately, people today are seldom riled to a defense of free speech on the basis of one or another philosophical tenets. Nope, today’s defenders of free speech are more often driven by a passionate hatred for the objects of their disapproval.
The smear common amongst all the left bloggers is that the opponents of the HRCs are – by definition – hate mongers.
I’m not going to convince the partisans, but I want to speak to their readers. In order to convince you to change your minds on the HRC thing and join us in opposing subsection 13.1, we, on the right have tried shouting at you, calling you stupid, calling you fascist and worse. Well those tactics haven’t worked for Ron Paul and they’re not working for us. So what I want to do is to get someone on your side to calmly explain our point of view, and hopefully get you to at least look into your position.
As I said above, Omar Soliman was unintentionally insightful. I’m referring to this statement: “the libertarian view of free speech is distinctly American political tradition, not exactly a Canadian one.”. I think he’s right – I don’t accept that the situation is right, but Mr. Soliman has a point. Canadian culture isn’t strong on free speech.
So best to start with Americans. I’ve contacted a number of prominent left-wing American writers, editors and thinkers to get their point of view on Free Speech, and the Steyn and Levant cases. I’ll be posting them over the next few weeks.
The first one I’ll start with is Noam Chomsky. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but I know that he is well respected by young people on the left. I asked him this:
A number of prominent right-wing Canadian authors are before my country’s various human rights tribunals and human rights commissions. One of those authors is Ezra Levant, who is charged with publishing the “Muhammad Cartoons”. The other is Mark Steyn, charged with a number of offenses amongst them quoting a European Imam on demographic predictions.
What is your opinion on these Human Rights Commissions and other government restrictions on “hate speech”? Are you generally supportive of these types of measures, or do you oppose them?
Here is his reply:
There should be a very heavy burden of proof on any effort to restrict freedom of speech. I strongly oppose the measures you describe. I do not think the burden of proof is even approached, let alone met. In this respect I agree with the US Supreme Court, which, in the 1960s, set what i think is a proper standard for protection of freedom of speech.
Noam Chomsky
That argument alone shouldn’t convince you to oppose the HRCs. But if this is someone you respect, then just take some time to reconsider your position and see if you can answer these questions: What is your position based on – logic or cultural bias? Can you defend it? If we on the right are hate-mongers for wanting to re-write or scrap the hate speech laws, then don’t you have to apply that same label to people like Chomsky?
More to come.
Filed under: Politics , free speech, Human Rights, levant, noam chomsky, Steyn
“Personally, I think Canada and all western countries need to have written constitutions worthy of the name with a strong set of rights put down on paper much like the Bill of Rights in the U.S.”
We have one already – it’s called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, brought in by Liberal PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
//
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
//
Read a bit further on in Trudeau’s constitution and you’ll find section 33, which nullifies every one of those rights by legislative fiat:
Section 33(1) of the Charter of Rights permits Parliament or a provincial legislature to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter (containing such fundamental rights as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of assembly) and sections 7-15 of the Charter (containing the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, a number of other legal rights, and the right to equality).
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm
Those acts are limited to 5 year terms (S 33(3)), and have to be reinstated to continue (S 33(4)). I think the notwithstanding clause was meant for times of emergency, but good point.
Haven’t we learned by now?
The only safe power, authority, or precedent to grant to the government is that power, authority, or precedent which you’d be comfortable being exercised by the opposite political party!
Those of you on the right in the U.S.: Are you comfortable granting George W. Bush’s administration the authority to eavesdrop on phone conversations where one party is in the U.S.? You are? Very well; are you equally comfortable granting Hillary Clinton that same authority?
If so, you’ve no fundamental reason to oppose such legislation. But if Hillary having that power gives you pause, then reconsider the precedent you set by granting that authority to the president under a right-leaning administration. For, once set, the precedent will remain, and you know perfectly well you won’t win every election.
People of the U.K.: Are you comfortable granting the role of state-supported religion to Anglicanism? Really? Very well: Are you equally comfortable with Islam as state-supported religion? For of course demographics change, and should there come a day when the Muslims who’re politically-organized and motivated enough to care outnumber the Christians who’re politically-organized and motivated enough to care, it’s not unreasonable to assume your courts will decree that state-funded mosques are only fair.
People of Canada: Are you comfortable granting to your government the role of deciding what speech is hate speech, and what speech is a protected “dissenting point of view?” Keep in mind that societies change over time, but the precedent for use of that power will remain intact. How comfortable would you be a hundred years hence when solid majorities favor radically different points-of-view? Would you be comfortable having your freedom of expression mediated by a Canadian version of Le Pen? A Canadian version of G.W. Bush? A Canadian version of Ahmadinejad? A Canadian version of Hugo Chavez? Of Putin? A century is a long time and any society can swing through more than one of these extremes over such a period.
Decide now what authority you grant to your government, and how you will restrain it.
The next election may not go your way.
[...] in the language used by PEN Canada, the CAJ, the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Noam Chomsky(!) and a dozen newspaper editorial boards across the country. That might hurt Warman’s [...]
this goes to show that you guys should read chomsky a little closer. He got in some hot water a while back for supporting an academic from france who wrote a book denying the holocaust. Chomsky basically said the guy’s book was garbage but joined together with others who claimed that the the academic shouldn’t lose his job for expressing is views. Also, I reckon anybody whose name ended up on one of those CIA watch lists in the 60s is going to wind up on the side of free speech
I would like to enlighten you with something you might find interesting. It has to do with the use of the tern ‘illegal immigrant’. I can remember a time when this term was not used. People use to say ‘illegal alien’. As far as I can tell, it is not used anymore. ‘Illegal immigrant’ is now the only thing you here; from the local and national news, to the Democratic Debates. The liberal media has slowly wiped it out to down play it’s hard edged effect on peoples outlook about illegals in the United States. There is power, as a whole, in the words that we use. And simple changing the word ‘alien’ to ‘immigrant’ has made the average American perceive this illegal act as something that doesn’t seem so wrong. And American’s are buying it, dismissing the law and our soveranty. The funny thing is, this term did not even exist. It is not in any Dictionary, and is very hard to look up on the internet. You might find it on a sight that deals with word usage, but most word banks will refer you strait to the term ‘illegal alien’ and its definition. ‘Legal alien’, in contrast, also does not exist. Now the term ‘illegal immigrant’, in my opinion, is kind of an oxymoron unto itself. An ‘illegal alien’ is a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country’s authorization. That means the act of being an alien in the United States is an illegal act, under the law. Now an ‘immigrant’ is a person who migrates to another country, usually for ‘permanent residence’. This definition is more vague, though we all understand the process which one goes through to become a ‘permanent resident’. That is to legally apply and then be accepted to enter. That means the act of being an immigrant in the United States is a legal act, under the law. Illegally crossing the border or purposefully overstaying your visa does not in anyway, shape, or form make one an ‘immigrant’. Being naturalized by the federal government does. Therefore, there is no such thing as an ‘illegal immigrant’. I think I made my point, but I just want to add that evil is out there using every little thing that they can make up to divide this country. And people need to know and understand that we have to enforce the law and uphold the constitution. Something even our president has not done very well, at least when it comes to our situation with ‘illegal aliens’.
While I don’t agree with everything Chomsky says, he have opinions on almost the most, many more things than he is qualified on. I wasn’t in any doubt about his firm position on free speech. That is probably noting one can say of today heated up free speech defenders that only defend the free speech of opinions they approve of. Not Hitchens, he obviously is on the right track. When the Faurisson affair was hot stuff there was a lot of left wingers that took Chomsky’s word in their mouth but they have balked.
Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression
Chomsky October 11, 1980
(…)
Then we must conclude that the person in question believes that the petition was “scandaleuse” because Faurisson should indeed be denied the normal rights of self-expression, should be barred from the university, should be subjected to harassment and even violence, etc. Such attitudes are not uncommon. They are typical, for example of American Communists and no doubt their counterparts elsewhere. Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States, which is why there has been nothing like the Faurisson affair here. In France, where a civil libertarian tradition is evidently not well-established and where there have been deep totalitarian strains among the intelligentsia for many years (collaborationism, the great influence of Leninism and its offshoots, the near-lunatic character of the new intellectual right, etc.), matters are apparently quite different.
For those who are concerned with the state of French intellectual culture, the Faurisson affair is not without interest. Two comparisons immediately come to mind. The first is this. I have frequently signed petitions — indeed, gone to far greater lengths — on behalf of Russian dissidents whose views are absolutely horrendous: advocates of ongoing U.S. savagery in Indochina, or of policies that would lead to nuclear war, or of a religious chauvinism that is reminiscent of the dark ages. No one has ever raised an objection. Should someone have done so, I would regard this with the same contempt as is deserved by the behavior of those who denounce the petition in support of Faurisson’s civil rights, and for exactly the same reason.
…
A second comparison also comes to mind. I rarely have much good to say about the mainstream intelligentsia in the United States, who generally resemble their counterparts elsewhere. Still, it is very illuminating to compare the reaction to the Faurisson affair in France and to the same phenomenon here. In the United States, Arthur Butz (whom one might regard as the American Faurisson) has not been subjected to the kind of merciless attack levelled against Faurisson. When the “no holocaust” historians hold a large international meeting in the United States, as they did some months ago, there is nothing like the hysteria that we find in France over the Faurisson affair. When the American Nazi Party calls for a parade in the largely Jewish city of Skokie, Illinois — obviously, pure provocation — the American Civil Liberties Union defends their rights (though of course, the American Communist Party is infuriated).
[...] Civil Liberties Association aren’t fulfilling the official stereotype either. Neither are Noam Chomsky or cartoonist Art Spiegelman or blogger Pamela Geller, but they’re not Canadian. I’m [...]
These comments for the most part sicken me, you’re all idiots. Obviously Chomsky is right about this, like he is right about a lot of things that don’t involve an understanding of economics.
[...] apparently Robert Jago posed the HRC question to Chomsky a few months ago, which sounds somewhat familiar now that I mention it. Email This Post Print This [...]
Please see our video interview with Prof. Noam Chomsky of MIT. Feel free to post this video on your site.
The Real News Network team
Geithner’s Plan is a Recycled Version of Bush/Paulson Program
“The plan is a win-win situation for investors and a lose-lose situation for American taxpayers”
With Timothy Geithner firing his opening salvos aimed at restoring America’s badly broken financial system and turning it into what he calls a “better, smarter, tougher regulation”, lobbyists and interest groups in Washington have already begun their efforts to modify and block certain sections of the new regulations that they see contrary to their interests.
Today, the Real News Network, starts the first segment of a multi-segment interview with Prof. Noam Chomsky on Timothy Geithner’s recently announced plans for the banks and clearing of their toxic assets. In this interview Prof. Chomsky mainly argues that the plan keeps the institutional structure intact without any meaningful reforms in it. Geithner’s plan, based on Chomsky’s assertion, essentially bribes investors and bankers in return for opening the credit markets to consumers and businesses.
Prof. Chomsky also states that Geithner’s plan avoids the measures that might get to the heart of the problem, therefore avoiding the costs of changing the institutional structure. In the course of the interview Chomsky points out to the sense of contempt and ridicule that bankers and financial managers have had for the public even in the face of receiving the TARP money. He then calls for a serious commitment by financial institutions and corporations to be responsible to their stakeholders with direct public engagement on how these institutions distribute their money.
Watch the first segment of this interview on The Real News Network and stay tuned for the following segments:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3484&updaterx=2009-03-27+10%3A57%3A14
Reza Akhlaghi
The Real News Network