Public speech has real consequences

Available online at The Star Phoenix

Consequences of public speech real

Kashif Ahmed, Special to the StarPhoenix
Friday, November 14, 2008

The recent decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to dismiss a complaint against Maclean’s magazine brings to light the issue of free speech striking at the core of Canadian social cohesion and political debate.

From a strict legal perspective, the tribunal was correct, as was the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to toss out the case against Maclean’s brought by a Muslim group over an article written by Mark Steyn. Yet, the B.C. tribunal was not alone in its recognition that Steyn’s piece was riddled with an anti-Muslim message.

The Ontario commission stated that, while freedom of expression was paramount, it was concerned about “the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets. This type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians.”

Although the commission did not have jurisdiction over the complaint, and even if we question its suitability to make public commentary, it still raised an important point. It was not simply one article written by Steyn. Rather, it was a series of pieces in Maclean’s that appeared to promote one single theme: Muslims are a dangerous group of aliens in western and Canadian society who cannot coexist peacefully with their fellow citizens.

It’s not the B.C. tribunal that wrongly questioned the professionalism and judgment of Maclean’s, as a recent Calgary Herald editorial suggested. Rather, the decision to publish those articles without including a legitimate discourse that entertained the views of Canadian Muslims is why the record of the national magazine is tarnished.

It is also of concern that Maclean’s chose to publish Steyn, who is unapologetic about his history of using xenophobic epithets such as “gooks,” “Chinks,” and “Japs.” (For the record, Steyn was not a respondent in the human rights complaint).

And yet some important questions are not being asked. What useful social function in Canada is served by repeatedly demonizing a minority community and making wild claims about it in the name of free speech? Does it strengthen the social fabric of Canada and bring communities together? The only result, in this case, is to increase public misunderstanding and misinformation.

The recent United States presidential race was a further example of what can occur when bigotry is not challenged. Since 9/11, years of Islamophobic rhetoric adopted by certain extreme American political elements led to “Muslim” or “Arab” becoming smear terms in the campaign. So much so, that in a response to a supporter’s false claim about now president-elect Barack Obama, Republican contender John McCain denied that Obama was an Arab or Muslim, and then said the Democrat was a “decent family man,” as if Muslims or Arabs could not possibly be decent family men.

American Muslims watched with shock as their identity was denigrated and reduced to a political slur. The smearing was finally challenged when Republican and former secretary of state Colin Powell denounced the campaign’s bigotry on NBC’s Meet The Press.

Is this a road that we, as a Canadian collective, want to go down as well? There are real consequences that result from free speech that is divisive and vitriolic, yet is not deemed by law to be hateful. Hence the apparent pontificating from the B.C. and Ontario human rights bodies on the Maclean’s case. There certainly is not an epidemic of Islamophobia in Canada, but the Muslim community and its representatives remain concerned.

Perhaps the human rights commissions should not be in the business of determining what constitutes hate speech. Many people think taxpayers’ money and human rights bodies that were created to deal largely with employment discrimination should not be used to adjudicate issues already covered by the Criminal Code — as demonstrated by the criminal trial of David Ahenakew over his alleged promotion of hatred against Jews.

Undoubtedly, freedom of expression must be closely guarded in Canada. Our treasured Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we, the Canadian public, demand no less. Yet, the debate should not overshadow the crux of the matter at hand: Our social cohesion and relations are severely undermined when us-versus-them attitudes and messages creep into the mainstream and try to divide us along ethnic and religious lines.

Indeed, our shared Canadian successes depend on our mutual willingness to reject such attempts at discord and division in the 21st century and our desire to rise above the sordid political game of suspicion.

5 Comments on "Public speech has real consequences"

  1. I enjoyed reading your piece. I just want to know how you arrived at this conclusion:

    “From a strict legal perspective, the tribunal was correct, as was the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to toss out the case against Maclean’s brought by a Muslim group over an article written by Mark Steyn”

    Regarding the BC case, many, including myself have argued that this was a political victory and not a legal determination http://lawiscool.com/2008/10/28/closure-to-the-free-speech-debate/.

  2. Many people think taxpayers’ money and human rights bodies… should not be used to adjudicate issues already covered by the Criminal Code

    I think this is the crux of my concern. One of the chief arguments in favour of having Human Rights Commissions adjudicate speech is that prosecutions under the criminal code are too difficult.

    As a soon to be lawyer commited to due process I say “boo hoo”. Frankly this argument doesnt sound much different from arguments in favour of military tribunals, security certificates, etc.–that fundamental liberal principles like the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. can be lightly discarded when its “too hard” to prosecute.

    The same illiberal premise populates discourse about prosecution of drunk driving. ‘Its ok to eliminate defenses that might allow an accused to raise a reasonable doubt because its too hard to prosecute and we cant have folks getting away with it’.

    The moderate, centrist position is yes, there is some expression that needs to be addressed because it is harmful to social cohesion and civil peace. I dont think that many people dispute that other than Ezra Levant and his wingnut friends. But the mechanisms in place to do so should be used sparingly, and accuseds should be entitled to the same due process as would be received in a criminal court.

    The argument that the traditional court structure is not amenable to this type of ‘dispute’ is similarily unpersuasive. If you want negotiations have prosecutors bring people in to talk things out. Prosecutors have wide discretion. Bring in a mediator if you need to. If the penalties are too harsh, reduce them.

    This is not an administrative law issue, and shouldnt be dealt like one. Only a court can take away your freedom and put you in jail (for long at least) and only a court should have the power to limit expression. It is too fundamental a right, even if it has its limits.

    I’ll also have to agree with Mr. Simard–possibly for the first time ever–in that I dont think the legal outcome was as certain as others have suggested. The law as written in so wide open, and employs such a low standard that a ‘conviction’ was certainly possible. I’m glad the tribunal and commissions exercised restraint, but a different outcome was certainly possible.

    My hope is that the SCC revisits the narrow 4-3 Taylor decision and bats this issue back to the criminal courts, or the Conservatives ‘grow a pair’ and bring the issue back to Parliament. Assuming the Liberals don’t “whip the vote” I think they have the numbers they need.

  3. KC:

    “I’ll also have to agree with Mr. Simard–possibly for the first time ever–…”

    Nice KC. But I thought we shared somewhat similar views when it comes to the striking support staff at York University.

  4. I stand corrected.

  5. I empathize with respect to the strike. The support staff at my law school went on strike in my third year, over what I saw as unreasonable demands. It was INCREDIBLY inconvenient particularly because I had a broken leg at the tim.

Comments are closed.