RSS FeedPublic 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.
In Defense of Free Speech…
On June 28 2008, the Canadian Human Rights commission dismissed the complaint against Maclean’s magazine (Rogers Media) concerning an article by Mark Steyn, and rightly so. (The complainants held that the article, among others, established a pattern of discrimination, and following repeatedly rebuffed attempts to respond in Maclean’s magazine, felt compelled to bring further action).
As many of you are aware, one article, “The Future Belongs to Islam”, is an opinion piece in which Steyn employs demographic information to support his opinion that the future of the Western world is in peril/doubt because of the spread of Islam.
While I am not a fan of Mark Steyn’s “neoconservative” ideology, as a self-described left-of-center civil libertarian I am certainly a fan of freedom of expression. Even if you do not agree with his arguments, he should have the right to express them without remaining worryingly susceptible to the retributive power of the state.
In fact, if it is held necessary that a body is to rule on the acceptability of certain speech, in order to protect vulnerable groups, the bar should be set exceedingly high. And according to previous rulings, the Supreme Court agrees. From the recent Maclean’s decision:
“The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 that this legally prescribed limitation of fundamental Charter rights [Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act] was reasonable and justifiable, but warned that caution and restraint would be required in the application of the section so that the limitation on free speech would be minimized to the greatest possible extent.”
From Taylor:
“The guarantee of freedom of expression is not unduly impaired by s. 13(1). The section is not overbroad or excessively vague. Its terms, in particular the phrase “hatred or contempt”, are sufficiently precise and narrow to limit its impact to those expressive activities which are repugnant to Parliament’s objective. The phrase “hatred or contempt” in the context of s. 13(1) refers only to unusually strong and deep‑felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification…”
The test was whether Steyn’s writings were so extreme and malicious in nature as to elicit hatred or contempt against the subjects:
“The court interpreted ‘hatred’ to mean a feeling of extreme ill-will that allows for no redeeming qualities in the person towards whom it is directed while ‘contempt’ “encompassed looking down upon or treating as inferior the object of one’s feelings.”
In an earlier related case referred to in the decision, Warman v. Kouba, it is made clear as to what type of material is considered to warrant intervention and censorship. Steyn’s writings certainly do not meet this benchmark. Hence, the commission concluded that the views expressed in the article:
“when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court.”
A decision is pending from the BC commission.
Podcast Feeds
