The limits of freedom

Editorial

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments last week and will issue a decision in a case that will define the limits of free expression in our country. A case that made its way to the highest court will determine whether calling homosexual behavior sinful, unhealthy and immoral is permissible under Canadian law.

At heart, the question is whether Canadians have a right to be free from fear of intolerance that could put them in physical jeopardy or demonstrably entrench inequality among citizens (which many of us would agree should be remediable by law), or whether protections should go further, preventing us from being offended, slighted, affronted or emotionally hurt (which many of us would say is taking the law too far).

In our opinion, the law should sanction actions, not ideas. This should not be taken as a diminishing of the power of words. Words inspire action – this is the purpose of public debate. But the impact of words on actions should occur in the realm of discussion, not law. Bad ideas should be challenged in media, online, at town hall meetings and over coffee.

William Whatcott, whose anti-gay opinions are the fulcrum of this Supreme Court case, should not be given an easy ride. His ideas should be challenged. The potential consequences of his campaign of intolerance should be considered in context of, for example, the suicide last week of Jamie Hubley, the son of an Ottawa city councillor and an apparent victim of merciless bullying. Words have consequences and, as a society, we should acknowledge their power and influence. But, also as a society, we should deal with these ideas in the medium where ideas are raised, debated, challenged and refuted, not in the courts.

Partly at issue in this case is the largely provincial patchwork of human rights laws and remedies which, as institutionalized racism has declined in Canada, have come to be applied in cases that many Canadians view as frivolous. (Ezra Levant has written a book and, to an extent, built a career on publicizing and ridiculing such cases.) Whatcott was ordered in 2002 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to pay $17,500 to four individuals who were offended by pamphlets Whatcott was distributing.

To employ a hackneyed but nonetheless relevant expression, we should strongly condemn what Whatcott has to say, while arguing mightily for his right to say it. We hope that the Supreme Court agrees.

^TOP