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).

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.

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

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.
//

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. Then kangaroo courts like the one in this case would never see the light of day. What I see happening throughout the West is a gradual erosion of the rights of individuals in the name of multiculturalism and not offending the most thin-skinned complainer who raises his hand and whines. Your rights and liberties are being stolen from you right from under your noses. My compliments to our blog host, who is fighting the good fight.