Stumble This
Email ThisNovember 13, 2009: Culture, Government, Language, November-December 2009, law, media
Strengthen democracy and fight bigotry head-on — Legalize Hate Speech
The fight for free speech is not the work of angels. Academics love Evelyn Hall’s famous saying, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In the age of promiscuous online speech, the sentiment of two university protestors seems more apt: “Free speech for all. Even douchebags.”
Marc Lemire, the cherubic-faced webmaster of white supremacist Freedomsite, is the latest unpalatable hero in the fight to fix Canada’s hate speech laws. On September 2, the Canadian Human Rights Commission vice-chairperson, Athanasios Hadjis, acquitted Lemire of hate speech charges for comments on the site accusing gays of conspiring to spread AIDS. Hadjis also declared the Section 13 hate speech provisions of Canada’s Human Rights Act unconstitutional. The decision is not legally binding. But it should be.
In addition to Canada’s rarely applied criminal laws against hate speech, human-rights commissions have had the authority to prosecute hate speech since 1977. This was expanded to include internet-based hate in 2001. The tribunal has a staggeringly low burden of proof compared to most legal proceedings; for instance, it’s easier to prosecute someone for hate speech than it is for libel. And until Lemire’s case, no one had ever been acquitted of hate speech by the CHRC, a record that would be scandalous for any other court. It puts Canada at odds with the hate speech laws of most other nations. It also puts us at odds with our own values.
We protect religion and equality because we recognize that these freedoms make individuals’ lives better. But we protect expression because unfettered dissent is the only way to protect democracy. When a government official sits across from conservative blogger Ezra Levant in a 25-square-foot conference room and asks him to explain his decision to publish the infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons, she is asking a single citizen to justify his political beliefs before the power of the state. Levant may be a blowhard, but that scenario should give everyone—left, right, whatever—serious pause.
The stated reason for upholding hate speech laws is that they protect minorities from greater harm. Or, as Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, ominously puts it:, “Racist war, from the ethnic cleansing in Cambodia, to the Balkans, to Darfur, to the Holocaust, did not start in a vacuum. Hateful words do have an effect.” We need a better justification than comparing ourselves to far-flung genocidal regimes. In Canada, we already prosecute rare hate-based assaults, murder, and yes, genocide. Hate speech laws punish people for creating the mere potential for violence, even though violence rarely materializes.
Even if hate speech rarely leads to violence, it is true that it demoralizes minorities and threatens tolerance. After anti-Islamic comments by Levant and Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn made headlines, a poll found that 45 percent of Canadians believe Islam promotes hatred and violence. The CHRC is right to worry about this kind of view taking hold. But trying to ban speech, especially on the internet, only gives it wings. When Levant posted the videos of his CHRC hearings to YouTube they received over 500,000 hits, and clips were featured on numerous mainstream media programs.
The (re)legalization of hate speech would be difficult and unpalatable. But we don’t have to approve of what the douchebags say—we just have to let them say it.
Legalization Week’s belated big finish: “Free speech for all. Even douchebags.” : This Magazine Blog // Canadian progressive politics, environment, art, culture // Subscribe today on Mon, 16th Nov 2009 11:54 am
[...] that I think might be the most controversial in the issue: Laura Kusisto writes that we should stop the prosecution of hate speech: We protect religion and equality because we recognize that these freedoms make individuals’ [...]
Sharmeen Khan on Fri, 20th Nov 2009 5:31 pm
Hate speech is not only used in examples of genocidal wars in "far-flung" regimes, they are also used to maintain ideologies of racism and sexism here in Canada. Do you think Canada is free of racist violence when there are land disputes happening just outside of Toronto? I think you need to visit the struggle in Six Nations to see how the power of "free speech" is a continuing dehumanization of the First Nations here in Canada.
The huge missing factor in this article is that not everyone has access to free speech. I'm not talking about the "douchbag" who called me Paki while riding his bike down the street, but the folks who have access to resources to put out newspapers and run radio stations. How to the working poor (who are disproportionately people of colour) get the resources to disapprove or engage in debate? It's this liberal notion that everyone is equal and has access to free speech, which I would expect better from a "progressive" magazine who should at least have an analysis about system oppression.
Finally, hate speech is not the basis for debate. the intent of the guy calling me Paki was a process of humiliation to remind me that I am not welcome here. It was a form of humiliation and violence, and often works in tandem with other forms of inequality (like employment discrimination, racial profiling, violence and so forth). The point of defining hate speech is to protect minorities. And given the level of racist attacks we see in Canada both inter-personally or systemically, no, I don't welcome hate speech or the right for douche bags to use it.
Ruhana Amara on Sun, 29th Nov 2009 9:05 pm
Thank you Sharmeen. I have been a loyal reader of THIS magazine for over a decade and lament the fact that the new breed of writer seems to lack the sensitivity and understanding I believe is required for a progressive understanding of society.
Imagine writing a piece such as this but not even bothering to speak with Bernie Farber (a man who has fought hate on the streets much of his adult life side by side with great heroes like the late Rodney Bobiwash, Richard Warman, Fo Neimi and others) to get another (possibly more progessive?) point of view.
THIS Magazine is losing favour with some of the regulars . Articles such as this will only drive more away.
Onching on Wed, 16th Dec 2009 5:23 am
I'm new to This (pun intended) so I apologize if my comment offends regulars. I mean no rancor in the following comment and I hope that we can come to understanding, if not concord.
I'm a person of color, too (Southeast Asian/Austronesian) and I feel equally uncomfortable when somebody calls me a "chink" or a "flip." Hate speech does lead to horrible things because it erodes sensitivities and potentially dehumanizes people.
However, there's nothing more satisfying than throwing that trash back in their racist faces with a healthy, "shut the fuck up, bastard!" Crude, perhaps, but we correct the excesses of free speech with more speech – unless that speech is being used to incite violence or crime, in which case it should be dealt with.
I agree with Sharmeen that media ownership and access stacks the "free speech" deck against working people and people of color.
That, however, is not an excuse to repress media via anti-hate speech laws. Doing so sets up a dangerous precedent.
If we can shut bloggers down for being anti-South Asian and calling people "Paki," we can use the same excuse to shut up Palestinians for protesting Israeli repression, or Jews for deploring Palestinian terrorism, or Chinese-Malay or Chinese-Indonesian immigrants for criticizing racism affirmative action in their home countries, or…
You see my point?
It's safer to have as many free speakers as possible, checked by each other and their audiences, with the government interfering only to ensure personal safety. If you feel that free speech is reinforcing racism, sexism, classism, and the repression of First Nations and people of color in Canada, then feel free to take to the streets and use *your* free speech.