Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘freedom of speech’

Native leader and antisemite extraordinaire David Ahenakew’s hate trial is underway.

I’ve always been torn on the issue of hate speech legislation. Restricting freedom of speech can have potentially dangerous consequences for a free society, and it’s not something to take lightly. After all, restricting free speech means that someone has the power to decide what qualifies as hate and what doesn’t. This opens the door for things like this, when those in power can muzzle their political opponents by attacking different opinions as “hate speech”. Deny a freedom to your enemies, and you open the door for your enemies denying that same freedom to you if the tables should turn.

And one could argue – convincingly – that people like Ahenakew should be encouraged to say what they really think, so at least we know what they really think and can judge them on that basis. And if political ostracism for hate speech isn’t disincentive enough for someone to shoot off their mouth in public, then it’s doubtful hate legislation will be either.

On the other hand, wilfully and publicly promoting hatred against a group of people, when left unchecked, can allow the hatred to grow and spread like a cancer. It’s like advertising; repeat something often enough and loudly enough, and people will start to believe it.

There are no easy answers here. However, the Ahenakew trial is just barely underway and it’s already leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

First of all, there’s the ridiculous defence argument that Ahenakew said what he did because he was on medication:

“He was certainly not feeling well that day and wouldn’t have said these things if he was feeling well,” [Defence lawyer Doug] Christie said.

“His medication had recently been doubled caused clearly by a chemical imbalance in the blood being related to diabetes. In addition to that he had two glasses of wine the night before.

“I think in those circumstances it’s pretty obvious that he wasn’t measuring his words the way he would normally do.”

Basically the lawyers are arguing a technicality: hatred is okay, but expressing it isn’t. That’s the way the law is written after all. This isn’t Orwell’s 1984 and we’re not about to start prosecuting thoughtcrime. So this defence argument of utter nonsense actually might work here.

This raises the question of what happens if Ahenakew is acquitted. Some people will use that mere fact as vindication for their hateful and antisemitic views. Ahenakew would become an underground hero of the antisemitic fringe. In many ways, an acquittal could have worse consequences for Canadian society than a lack of trial in the first place.

Then there’s the issue of the media coverage of Ahenakew’s trial actually becoming an additional vehicle for Ahenakew’s vile views to be spread. Every time a clip of Ahenakew’s despicable statements about Jews is shown on the news, millions of Canadians are hearing it. One hopes that most people react to what they hear with distaste, but some people may be reacting by agreeing. After all, it’s this exposure of such views that hate speech legislation was designed to prevent.

Now that Ahenakew is on trial, only a conviction would send a message to Canadians that promotion of such hatred is unacceptable. Only a conviction will deter further spreading of the cancer of hatred. Which is why I’m hoping for this outcome. It’s kind of like the war in Iraq; agree or disagree with it at first, now that the US is there, they have to finish the job.

But there are a lot of tricky questions here, and I don’t think the sour taste is going away anytime soon.

After reversing its decision to allow Ehud Barak to speak on campus, Concordia is now trying to claim that they didn’t really change their minds:

Nov. 5, 2004 — Media coverage of a statement issued by Federation CJA yesterday may have caused misunderstanding about Concordia’s position regarding inviting Ehud Barak to speak at Concordia. Concordia’s position has not changed and the university’s primary concern remains the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and our guests.

As Dr. Lowy outlined in his update to the community of Oct. 25 and subsequent opinion page pieces in the Toronto Star, The Gazette and Le Devoir:

“Concordia is presently reviewing its physical plant and general environment. Changes recommended by experts will be considered so that all speakers can then be welcomed on campus. And this will be done in a timely fashion with an eye towards implementing the necessary changes this academic year. Until then, we will continue to hold off campus under Concordia auspices any event considered not secure in our present facilities. Freedom of expression will continue to be supported as it always has been at Concordia.”

This has been Concordia’s position and remains Concordia’s position.

The university is examining possible locations from a security viewpoint with the intent of making the necessary modifications so an event of this kind can be held with the proper level of security, dignity and respect that such a visit demands.

In the light of the work that remains to be done, this will certainly not be possible in this calendar year. The university will try to make this possible before the end of the academic year.

This is spin 101: try to please everybody and offend nobody by saying contradictory things in the same statement.

The fact is, Concordia initially said no to the Barak speech, citing security concerns. Now they’re saying they hope they can host him in the current academic year on campus. Whether they admit it or not, that’s a reversal. And the right thing to do. But I wish they weren’t so cowardly about admitting it.

Concordia University has had a change of heart. Reversing its initial decision to disallow the speech due to “security concerns”, now Barak will be allowed to speak on campus:

Backtracking on a decision that fuelled a furor over free speech, Concordia University in Montreal has agreed to invite former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to speak on its campus.

The university reached the decision after “extensive discussions” with Jewish community leaders, according to a press release yesterday. Concordia says it will welcome Mr. Barak once it can upgrade security in one of its buildings.

Federation CJA has applauded this decision, and I hope that the support that the university receives from the public will convince them that they are doing the right thing by allowing the former PM to speak.

Many students will be upset by this decision, and I can understand why. They don’t want more tensions, more headlines, or the risk of another riot. They just want the situation to calm down and go away.

But ultimately I believe that this is the right decision. I hope that the average student can understand the importance of defending free speech – not just for rioters, but for everyone.

If the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh had any kind of lesson, it’s that certain kinds of speech are very dangerous, because certain groups have ensured that this is so. Upon hearing that news, Damian had this reflection:

It’s worth remembering a scene in Martin Himel’s Global TV documentary, Jenin: Massacring Truth, in which a cartoonist for The Independent is asked about his cartoon showing Ariel Sharon eating a baby, and why he wouldn’t draw Arafat in such a manner. He responds, glibly, that “Jews don’t issue fatwas.”

Martin Himel, you will recall, was also behind the controversial documentary Confrontation at Concordia, about the 2002 Netanyahu riots.

The point here is that certain people are willing to resort to violence in order to shut down speech they disagree with. They cannot be allowed to succeed. Otherwise, they will grow bolder and bolder, until eventually the only speech permitted will be their point of view.

Concordia made the wrong decision at first. I believe that strongly. And their change of heart is a case of better late than never.

To all of you out there who may have written leaders or participated in the awareness campaign about this event, I believe you had an effect. Thank you.

To the students and alumni who will be upset or angered by this decision – including some members of a divided Hillel – please try to understand the larger implications of this decision, and realize that defence of free speech – while not always smooth – ultimately benefits us all.

And to anyone considering rioting: you may have thought you were victorious. This new decision proves you were wrong. If you disagree with Barak’s message, feel free to mount a peaceful protest. That’s what freedom of speech is all about. But I hope you think long and hard before resorting to violence again. That has absolutely no place in a free society.

Federation CJA has issued a release condemning Concordia’s decision on Ehud Barak:

“This is a day of great sadness for those who value freedom of expression in our universities and in Canadian society,” stated Federation CJA President Sylvain Abitbol. “Concordia University has allowed itself to be taken hostage by a small and violent group within its campus. With this decision, Concordia has demonstrated that the right to free speech is only as strong as the institutional will to protect it.”

I wonder how long we’ll have to wait to see similar condemnations from Muslim community leaders. I wouldn’t hold my breath…

Update: The Montreal Gazette, the CBC, and Canoe all have the story. Lots more coverage sure to follow. I’m sure the university won’t know what hit them.

Another semester, another scandal.

This time, Hillel submitted a request to bring Ehud Barak to speak at Concordia, but, according to a press release from Hillel, the university has denied their request for anywhere on both campuses – even Loyola. Now, they’re holding a protest:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DENIED AT CONCORDIA

First Ehud Barak, WHO’S NEXT ???

Join us for a FREE SPEECH RALLY:

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2004

12 PM at the corner of McKay and De Maisonneuve

Please read the open letter below for more information.

Dear fellow student,

We are writing to ask for your support. Last week, Concordia University denied former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak permission to speak anywhere on campus – including the quiet, and more easily guarded, Loyola campus – hiding behind a “security risk assessment”.

They claim that they cannot effectively secure their campuses. We say that it is their duty to protect their students and to allow freedom of speech to exist on their campuses.

A small group of thugs are holding an entire university community hostage and deciding who is allowed to speak and who is not. All people who value democratic principles such as freedom of expression and speech should share our outrage with this intolerable situation.

This is not acceptable in our Quebec and Canadian society. We ask for your cooperation in FREEING speech. We will be gathering outside Concordia’s Hall building on Tuesday at 12pm (Corner Mackay and Maisonneuve) calling for the Board of Governors, the Administration, the Faculty and students of Concordia to reclaim their campus.

This is a historic opportunity and no matter what your political affiliation is… This affects you!

Today is a day of great sadness for freedom of expression at universities and in Canadian society.

We invited Ehud Barak so that we could all learn from him. We have been told that the Administration has restored peace to its campuses. This unfortunate incident has demonstrated that we have appeased the violent side but we have not achieved true peace. Peace should not be confused with appeasement.

We will know that we have peace on campus when we can all learn together- when we can all reason together, safely, intelligently and constructively. For that, we and our parents sacrifice so much- in order to pay tuition and learn at this school.

In return, all we demand, is equal treatment and a safe learning environment, just like everyone else.

Is that too much to ask?

Looking forward to your support,

Yacov Fruchter

Montreal Hillel President

Jason Portnoy

Concordia Hillel co-President

When the idea was first floated to bring Ehud Barak – a left-wing dovish former Israeli PM who offered Yasser Arafat a historic settlement at Camp David in 2000 – to Concordia, there were mixed opinions. Some students thought he would be an interesting and valuable speaker.

Others, however, worried that bringing a “controversial” speaker like Barak (I guess at Concordia, anyone associated with Israel is controversial) would disrupt the relative calm that has returned to students’ lives over the past two years, and bring back the chaos and divisiveness of the period before and after the Netanyahu riots. For example, this student:

Forget all the bickering over how dovish or hawkish Barak is, or whether he has a right to come to Concordia. He’s a legitimate politician of a democratic state, and of course he should be permitted to speak, here or anywhere else. That said, it would be better for all of us if Barak did not come to Concordia. I say this not because I have anything against the man, but because this is the first year in all my time at Concordia where I can go to class without passing people in the Mezz screaming at each other, or reading inflammatory letters about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Link. We’re not making national headlines because of riots, moratoriums or arrests; and people now are talking about tuition fee hikes, fair trade coffee, the excellent performance of this year’s CSU, and other issues much more relevant to Concordia students at home. I like this kinder, gentler version of Concordia, and would very much resent Hillel, SPHR, or any other organization’s attempts to sabotage that simply to make a point. Bring Barak to a synagogue or a community centre, and I’d be the first person to see what he has to say. But for the love of God, not at my school. Not at the cost of setting us back another two years. Signed, -Another Jewish student sick of it all.

I am all too aware of what it’s like to go to a school that is in the midst of hostile tensions. The atmosphere on campus is finally calmer and friendlier, and I can understand why students wouldn’t want to shake things up again.

I can understand. But I vehemently disagree.

You see, denying Barak’s right to speak means letting the people who rioted against Netanyahu win. They used violence to shut down Netanyahu’s right to speak. In the process, they ensured that nobody they dislike would ever be allowed to speak on campus again, because the university would be too afraid to let them. So pro-Palestinian speakers are more than welcome at Concordia – there were several last year – but Israeli speakers are shunned.

That’s victory to thuggery over reason. That’s victory to – and no, I’m not exaggerating – terrorism over freedom. Because using violence or the threat of violence to shut down free speech is in fact a form of terrorism. SPHR and their friends have terrorized the university, the student population, and the administration, into

Above all, that’s a lack of a free, open exchange of ideas, which is what education is supposed to be all about.

This isn’t really about Barak who – despite his dovish politics, is going to be as demonized by SPHR and the Palestinian lobby as any Israeli. It has nothing to do with whether I liked Barak’s policies or Netanyahu’s or Ariel Sharon’s or anyone else.

This is about a competition of ideas, and whether one set of ideas will be allowed to shut down and stifle another. It’s about the future of Jewish students at university campuses all over North America, and whether they will have the right to bring in speakers or openly proclaim their views without fear of violence. It’s about whether we – as a society – want to accept the notion that anyone can speak at a university campus… except an Israeli.

As a Concordia alum, I support Hillel in this call to action. It is my hope – though, sadly, not my expectation – that any reasonable student, regardless of political affiliation or background – who supports the right to free speech, will go out there and join them.

I won’t be there in person but I’ll be there in spirit. Please spread the word.

It’s easy for Arafat to deny any crisis when journalists receive death threats for reporting it:

Palestinian journalists covering the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian Authority complained over the weekend that they had received death threats from the various feuding parties.

As a result, many of them said they have stopped covering the internecine fighting. Others said they were continuing to report on the power struggle, but without having their names mentioned for fear of reprisal.

“Many Palestinians working with the foreign media in the Gaza Strip are being threatened,” a journalist in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post. He said the threats were coming from all the parties involved in the internal strife

[ . . . ]

The Gaza City rally was either downplayed or completely ignored by the Palestinian media. Al-Quds, the largest daily newspaper, instead carried a story in which it said Palestinians throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip continued to express their support for Yasser Arafat by staging marches and issuing statements.

So much of the world continues to stubbornly insist that the Palestinian government is democratic. Freedom of the press would seem to be a basic requirement for that to hold true, and yet, here’s just further evidence that journalists are only allowed to report one thing: anti-Israel news stories. Anything else could get them shot.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada limited special interest spending in election campaigns by third-parties.

The blogosphere is up in arms about this. Damian Penny thinks that the decision will “come back to haunt” us. He links to Colby Cosh, who claims this law turns special interests into “second-class citizens”. David Janes says that “Freedom died today in Canada”. And so on. And so forth.

I’m going to take a flying departure from all of them and say that I think this ruling is actually a very good idea. And here’s why:

“Freedom of expression” does not mean the same thing as “freedom to buy politicians and drown out everyone else’s expression”. There may be nobody much to vote for at the polls, but at least my choices are still between the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, or Bloc… and not between the gun lobby, the anti-abortion lobby, the union lobby, or the environmental lobby. We need only to glance towards our neighbours to the south, who are stuck between voting for the ACLU or the NRA in each and every election.

Lobbying as a political activity in itself is all very well and good. But sadly, it has the effect of so heavily mortgaging political parties to special interests, that they no longer have the freedom to govern effectively.

This law doesn’t restrict third-party spending outside of an election period. It doesn’t stop people from expressing their opinions, or from organizing to do so in a concerted fashion. If anything, this will allow a wider variety of opinions to be heard, because the ones with the most money can’t drown out the rest.

The next step, in my opinion, is rigorous campaign spending laws for candidates and parties. People should win on the strength of their ideas, not on how frequently they can plaster their face on prime-time.

But, as Dennis Miller would say, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Parliament has voted to extend hate law protection to gays by a wider margin than yesterday’s vote on gay marriage. But the motion still passed only by 33 votes.

This bill was kind of a rock-or-a-hard-place issue. It’s tempting to lump it together with yesterday’s marriage vote, but in reality, the issues are separate. Sure, both votes involved gays and human rights, but that’s where the similarities end.

Firstly, today’s vote was proposed by idiotarian Svend Robinson (and for the record, it’s his politics, not his sexual orientation, that I object to).  Remember Svend? The guy who nominated the ISM for a Nobel Peace Prize? And made the announcement on IndyMedia? Yeah, forgive me for being a bit skeptical of him.

In this case, though, I find myself agreeing with Svend . . . because the alternative is people like this:

Opponents of the bill had complained that the legislation would stifle free speech, particularly among religious groups.

Some worried that passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality could be declared hate literature.

“We’ve seen through the courts that when religious freedom comes up against gay rights, that in fact religious freedom intends to be more often than not the loser in those particular cases,” said Derek Rogusky, of the group Focus on the Family.

Actually, the main difference is that the issue here is not marriage – where, granting the right to gays to marry doesn’t infringe on the rights of straight people to do so. The issue is much more controversial than that. A debate has been raging about hate laws right here on this blog, and I can’t say that there’s any black and white clear answer on the notion.

However, it seems clear to me that, considering the fact that these hate laws already exist, and that it’s already illegal to incite hatred against people based on colour, race, ethnicity, or religion, then it seems logical to me that sexual orientation be included as well.

In other words, either the law should be for everyone or no-one. Either extend it to gays or scrap it altogether. Anything else is just plain hypocritical.

A comment just below questioned my stance on freedom of speech. I started to reply to it, but realized this is a core issue on this blog and I should address my thoughts to all readers. Some of you will agree and some won’t, but for what it’s worth, here’s how I view this very complex and touchy issue.

Freedom of speech is a precious and inalienable right. David H is correct in saying: “Allowing one group of people to decide that the words of another group are so dangerous that they must be silenced is a dangerous precedent.” I have repeatedly stated that freedom of speech need apply to all, and not only to those we agree with. If I, for example, say that Kevin Spacey is a good actor, and an angry mob of people disagrees with me and decides to riot to prevent me from speaking those words, then they are denying my right to free speech.

But freedom of speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of that speech. And that is where laws about incitement of hatred come into play.

The angry mob that chose to silence the speech of Benjamin Netanyahu was denying the right to freedom of speech by deciding ahead of time that based on who Mr. Netanyahu is – namely, the right-wing, former Prime Minister of a country that they hate – he shouldn’t have the right to address a crowd. That was wrong for many obvious reasons. Having read the text of the speech that Netanyahu planned to give on September 9th of last year, it is clear that – though it contains a political opinion that is unpopular amongst the Left at Concordia, it is far removed from any sort of hate speech. If Netanyahu were to have been permitted to speak, however, and if he did in fact incite hatred, then he would have been subject to the consequences of this under the law, just like anyone else.

I think a great deal of misconception comes from the word “censorship”. The C-word is taken as a given evil, and people scurry away from it screaming. But, to quote the old cliché, freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. Not permitting the yelling of “fire” isn’t censorship; it’s protection of public safety. Similarly, it doesn’t give you the right to approach a contract killer and ask that he murder your wife. That may be speech, but it’s also contracting murder which is – rightly – extremely illegal.

So, of course it is obvious that there are limits to speech. Those are clear-cut cases, but what about cases that aren’t so clear-cut? For example, what about somebody publishing a website denying the Holocaust? This is where societies differ – in the U.S. it’s legal, in Canada it’s not. There are arguments on both sides of the issue here. Some would argue that denying this freedom is ultimately more dangerous, because if the situation were to be reversed and the tyranny became the majority, they could conceivably deny the freedom to you. The true test of freedom of speech, they would argue, is whether we can bear to watch a Ku Klux Klan march, or a neo-Nazi rally, without succumbing to our natural desire to shut these racist assholes up.

I think they make a good point. And that they’re wrong.

Freedoms are not absolute. They end at the point where they interfere with the rights of their fellow human beings. Incitement of hatred has real consequences for the groups against which it is directed. And a society must draw the line somewhere in order to function civilly.

Hate speech is not without cost or consequence. To assume that speech is always peaceful is like saying that contracting a killing is a peaceful, protected act. Certain groups have learned very quickly that if you repeat a lie often enough, people come to believe it as truth. And if you spew hate loudly enough and often enough, you recruit others to your cause, and ultimately create what Ursula Owen calls a “culture of hate“:

In the face of such enormities, the political correctness debate has rather muddied the waters, diluting the wider implications of what hate can produce. For the most dangerous threat behind hate speech is surely that it can go beyond its immediate targets and create a culture of hate, a culture which makes it acceptable, respectable even, to hate on a far wider scale. Such a culture of hate is not easy to define, and does not necessarily have one trajectory, but its evolution is evident in the circumstances surrounding some events in recent history.

[ . . . ]

Words can turn into bullets, hate speech can kill and maim, just as censorship can. So, as dedicated opponents of censorship and proponents of free speech, we are forced to ask: is there a moment where the quantitative consequences of hate speech change qualitatively the arguments about how we must deal with it. And is there no distinction to be made between the words of those whose hate speech is a matter of conviction, however ignorant, deluded or prejudiced, and hate speech as propaganda, the calculated and systematic use of lies to sow fear, hate and violence in a population at large?

Owen has been one of the world’s most staunch supporters of freedom of speech. But even she concedes that the area of hate speech is tricky, and that there are no clear-cut answers.

Speech is a weapon as well as a right. There ought to be a wide range of what is considered acceptable speech. We shouldn’t censor speech simply because we disagree with it or find it distasteful. But when it crosses the line into outright incitement of hatred, then it stops being a healthy part of society and becomes a cancer.

If the majority becomes the tyranny, then hate speech laws may be used against the good minority. But we must prevent the majority from becoming the tyranny in the first place, or else we’ll have a lot more to worry about than laws on freedom of speech. We’ll have lost our humanity.

Initial reports that CHUM radio had pulled 20 anti-war songs off the playlists of one of its radio stations are false, much to my relief. When I first read the story, I couldn’t believe it . . . and apparently, neither could the station:

The original report claimed the banned songs included Give Peace A Chance by John Lennon, Soldier Boy by The Shirelles (a love song), Revolution by The Beatles and One Tin Soldier by The Original Caste.

“No songs have been banned on 1050 CHUM — none,” Brad Jones, the station’s program director, said yesterday. The station yesterday even played at least two of the purported banned songs, including Give Peace A Chance.

Rob Farina, program director of 104.5 CHUM-FM, said his station also has not banned any war- or peace-themed songs.

Jones said pulse24.com’s story was the result of a breakdown in communication during an interview between a pulse24.com reporter and CHUM-FM music director Barry Stewart. The reporter asked Stewart which war-themed songs were being pulled. Stewart thought the reporter meant pulled off the shelf for broadcast, whereas the reporter meant pulled from the playlist.

I’m certainly glad that the rumours turned out to be false. But the fact that the media was so willing to believe and publish the story in the first place raises an interesting question: where does the line get crossed? Being sensitive to controversy is one thing, but I could never condone all-out censorship, and neither could most people.

But while this report was false, reports that MTV Europe is practicing censorship unfortunately seem to be true:

MTV has banned music videos with war-related titles, lyrics or images, including Paul Hardcastle’s 19 and Outkast’s Bombs over Baghdad, for the duration of the conflict in Iraq.

The leading music channel will not show pop promos that feature “war, soldiers, war planes, bombs, missiles, riots and social unrest, executions and other obviously sensitive material”, according to an internal memo seen by MediaGuardian.co.uk.

[ . . . ]

“MTV, like many other broadcasters, feels content should reflect audience sensitivities at this time of war,” an MTV spokeswoman said.

“Any changes to playlists are only a temporary measure,” she added.

I sincerely hope that this policy is reconsidered. After all, isn’t freedom of expression one of the things we’re fighting for?