This is a great piece. I've been following the steady march of anti-speech laws in Europe. As an American, I find it abhorrent. America is flawed, with many social problems, but in my own humble opinion, it is not a stretch to say that America is the greatest country in the world due to the Bill of Rights. Of course these rights have been protected unevenly, with serious disparities. But our freedom of speech is one thing that seems to have maintained its power. It is absolutely wild to me that I could go to prison in many places in Europe for simple offensive speech. It wouldn't be a problem for me personally because I don't engage in offensive speech; I'm not even on any social media platform. Yet is chills me to hear about this Orwellian march of speech repression. Of course, the central question is: who decides?
Agreed wholeheartedly. Well said. When I ask people your ending question: "Who decides?" I never get a satisfactory answer. I'll keep asking, it's very important.
The author might have buried the lede here, which I think is fully contained in the last two paragraphs. While free speech is important, and is in the US a primary value, the biggest concern to me has always been the overwhelmingly difficult problem of a government deciding among different views and expressions, using its foundational police power to police opinions.
That includes vile and offensive ones. It's easy enough for each of us to determine what's vile or offensive for ourselves, and there are areas where there is a large majority who agree that certain opinions are terrible to hold in the modern world. But in a truly functioning democracy, there is no such thing as a universal opinion, a reality that may get lost in our relentless focus on eliminating discrimination.
As a gay man it's taken me a lifetime to realize that some people are never going to accept homosexuality. Yet I live in the same country as they do, and we share many other values of importance. I can disagree politely, even pleasantly, and sometimes with good humor, but I have found many people are immune from whatever charm I might possess. In the end, I would be foolish not to accept any good faith belief they hold (even what I consider an uninformed one), just as I would hope they would accept my own good faith beliefs.
That's not the kind of conflict government is in any position to judge or enforce. The same principle is at work in the First Amendment's other provisions about religious differences. It's not that government is bad, only that it is less capable of applying the governmental restraining, and quite ancient concept of due process to certain kinds of disputes that are entirely personal. Government is not good or competent at everything, and this seems to be an absolute limit.
This doesn't undermine any of the author's other very strong arguments. But in a world where governments have been given pretty free rein, I think these guardrails tend to fade into the background, when they are today more important than ever.
If Canada really believes in this new law the courts will be full of antisemitic leftwingers. But that won’t happen. Trudeau is really afraid of white, rural truck drivers. This cements the theory of an alliance of leftwingers, elites and authoritarian technocrats.
Good article, but at the end of it, it sounded a bit paranoid, with the next paragraph saying everyone should be able to carry concealed weapons. I’ll go with germanys approach on this one.
Let’s take one of the statements from the article and play a little “Hate speech is the mechanism by which citizens in a democracy seek this knowledge and understanding …” I doubt that’s what is intended but that is the subject of this. I find it unconvincing that we need hate speech for healthy and vibrant democracy.
I totally agree with the earlier point though, the mechanism and most likely politicization that is proposed for hate speech determination in the legislation is looking about as good as the not withstanding clause that is seeing more and more abuse.
I would like to see hate speech and related violence neutralized. But what is better, more hate speech while we wait for the perfect solution to be found or less open speech with the proposed mechanisms?
This is a great piece. I've been following the steady march of anti-speech laws in Europe. As an American, I find it abhorrent. America is flawed, with many social problems, but in my own humble opinion, it is not a stretch to say that America is the greatest country in the world due to the Bill of Rights. Of course these rights have been protected unevenly, with serious disparities. But our freedom of speech is one thing that seems to have maintained its power. It is absolutely wild to me that I could go to prison in many places in Europe for simple offensive speech. It wouldn't be a problem for me personally because I don't engage in offensive speech; I'm not even on any social media platform. Yet is chills me to hear about this Orwellian march of speech repression. Of course, the central question is: who decides?
Agreed wholeheartedly. Well said. When I ask people your ending question: "Who decides?" I never get a satisfactory answer. I'll keep asking, it's very important.
The author might have buried the lede here, which I think is fully contained in the last two paragraphs. While free speech is important, and is in the US a primary value, the biggest concern to me has always been the overwhelmingly difficult problem of a government deciding among different views and expressions, using its foundational police power to police opinions.
That includes vile and offensive ones. It's easy enough for each of us to determine what's vile or offensive for ourselves, and there are areas where there is a large majority who agree that certain opinions are terrible to hold in the modern world. But in a truly functioning democracy, there is no such thing as a universal opinion, a reality that may get lost in our relentless focus on eliminating discrimination.
As a gay man it's taken me a lifetime to realize that some people are never going to accept homosexuality. Yet I live in the same country as they do, and we share many other values of importance. I can disagree politely, even pleasantly, and sometimes with good humor, but I have found many people are immune from whatever charm I might possess. In the end, I would be foolish not to accept any good faith belief they hold (even what I consider an uninformed one), just as I would hope they would accept my own good faith beliefs.
That's not the kind of conflict government is in any position to judge or enforce. The same principle is at work in the First Amendment's other provisions about religious differences. It's not that government is bad, only that it is less capable of applying the governmental restraining, and quite ancient concept of due process to certain kinds of disputes that are entirely personal. Government is not good or competent at everything, and this seems to be an absolute limit.
This doesn't undermine any of the author's other very strong arguments. But in a world where governments have been given pretty free rein, I think these guardrails tend to fade into the background, when they are today more important than ever.
The acid test will be whether the law applies to Muslims
Lots of Canadians are great and the one's I know have a ton of love for Canada. Have we ever explored the idea that Canada actually stinks?
Bad weather, low wages, bad governance, worse housing crisis, more social justice weirdos.
Week 1:
“They called me a she when I am really a he inside of my head. I charge them with fomenting genocide of transients.”
The Commission: “Guilty on all counts. Duh,”
Week 2: He said “Zionists do not deserve to live. I charge him with fomenting genocide.”
The Commission: “We don’t agree but he has a right to free speech, which we are here to defend and ensure. I mean, for democracy’s sake.”
As bureaucrats are not known for their appreciation of satire and parody, I see a society with less opportunities for laughter.
If Canada really believes in this new law the courts will be full of antisemitic leftwingers. But that won’t happen. Trudeau is really afraid of white, rural truck drivers. This cements the theory of an alliance of leftwingers, elites and authoritarian technocrats.
You cannot legislate hate. This will be a disaster. Ask Scotland.
Good article, but at the end of it, it sounded a bit paranoid, with the next paragraph saying everyone should be able to carry concealed weapons. I’ll go with germanys approach on this one.
Let’s take one of the statements from the article and play a little “Hate speech is the mechanism by which citizens in a democracy seek this knowledge and understanding …” I doubt that’s what is intended but that is the subject of this. I find it unconvincing that we need hate speech for healthy and vibrant democracy.
I totally agree with the earlier point though, the mechanism and most likely politicization that is proposed for hate speech determination in the legislation is looking about as good as the not withstanding clause that is seeing more and more abuse.
I would like to see hate speech and related violence neutralized. But what is better, more hate speech while we wait for the perfect solution to be found or less open speech with the proposed mechanisms?