Free speech confusion

Editorial

The story of Chanukah gives us pause to reflect on how people with different beliefs treat one another. The Maccabees, led by Matityahu, had to wage warfare against the Syrian army because the Syrian-Greek regime of Antiochus sought to outlaw aspects of Jewish observance. As Jews, we have no trouble accepting the actions of the underdogs – the Maccabees – in protecting their rights against the state that sought to curtail them. We do not seem so quick today to condemn those who might curtail individual freedom.

A study of Canadians' attitudes toward censorship indicates that 91 per cent of Canadians say they deem the preservation of freedom of speech important. Yet 74 per cent say they think hate speech should be illegal, 60 per cent say pornography should be illegal and 85 per cent say violent pornography should be illegal.

The poll, reported in the National Post Nov. 25, should jolt readers into a state of cognitive dissonance. While it is encouraging that almost all Canadians see the right to free expression as at least theoretically important, when it comes to applying that theoretical belief to practical examples, our respect for liberties dissipates quickly.

Our approach to this issue is best illustrated in comparison to our American neighbors. Traditionally, the United States has been seen as a defender of individual liberties above all else, while Canada's approach to freedom has been to emphasize the common good. Though Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms has changed this emphasis to some extent, giving individual rights more emphasis than previously existed in Canadian law, it also recognizes "group rights" (such as the rights of aboriginal communities and religious groups, for example).

Canadians seem to have a very murky concept of what free expression is all about. We have been more willing than Americans, generally, to accept limitations on free speech in the interest of what we believe to be the greater good. In other words, we have tended to strive for a middle ground of "free speech with limits."

There is enormous merit in this approach. Few Canadians would argue with the wisdom that it should be illegal to incite someone to murder members of a minority group. But there is a fundamental disconnect between accepting a law forbidding such incitement and our belief that we support free speech. A parallel could be to declare that we are in favor of both eating chocolate cake and dieting. It is easy to make such a statement; it is far more difficult to implement it in practical terms.

Back to the poll results. It is difficult to find anyone but the most devoted civil libertarian standing up for an individual's right to possess violent pornography. But the very basis of free expression is not to defend ideas that we find pleasing or non-threatening (that's quite easy to do), but to defend the rights of those who wish to express ideas that we find vile or abhorrent.

Some Jewish communal organizations, notably Canadian Jewish Congress, have an intellectually honest and honorable approach. Consistently, CJC argues that free speech is not absolute. CJC maintains there is a fundamentally Canadian compromise to be made between the interests of minority groups, who wish to remain safe from persecution, and the right of individuals to express views about identifiable groups.

Whether you agree or disagree with CJC, at least they have a consistent and identifiable philosophy on the matter.

Unlike CJC, however, most Canadians apparently do not understand that you cannot justifiably state, "Free speech is inviolable, but...."

We can continue, as a society, to ban certain types of expression, but we should not pretend, at the same time, that we cherish free speech above almost everything else.

There is another lesson to be learned from the Americans and that is their experience since Sept. 11, 2001. A country that has trumpeted for two centuries its commitment to individual liberty has been forced to reassess what those liberties mean when the nation is literally under attack. Americans know, as a country, where they stood (for free speech) and they know where they want to be (safe from external attack) – now they must figure out a compromise within those recognized parameters.

We should undertake a major national discussion on this issue before we are faced (God forbid) with a challenge like the Americans face today. We do not have to choose between absolutes. But we do have an obligation to recognize the incongruity of our current views and to develop an intellectually honest position on this very important issue. If we choose to err on the side of group rights and "the greater good," let's acknowledge what we are doing and not pretend to be a paragon of free speech.

^TOP