Some thoughts on freedom of speech
My pal Bobcaygeon, with whom I disagree more often than not, hits the nail on the head here on the cartoon issue.
I think the news release from Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay today was a good one, where he pretty much said that freedom of speech, while a Canadian value, doesn't mean you go out of your way to antagonize. However, some of the readers of the Western Standard blog are having a hard time coming to grips with what Mackay said.
It's vital to recognize that there are some laws in the West which restrict freedom of speech. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre because you'll be charged with mischief. Is that an affront to free speech? Sure it is. Can you deny the Holocaust in a classroom of high school students like Jim Keegstra did? No, you cannot. Is that an affront to free speech? Yes. Is the recent arrest of the London imam who supposedly incited the 7/7 bombers to carry out their heinous attacks an affront to free speech? Again, yes. And these restrictions on free speech, I would suggest, are good ones and the majority of Canadians would probably think so as well.
The reaction of the Islamic radicals is absolutely ridiculous and inappropriate. I think the cartoonist in Denmark should have been able to draw whatever he wanted to. I am also against hate laws which would make sentences for violent crimes more severe if the court determined that the motive for the crime was one based on hate. Violence is violence, no? However, there are societal limits on free speech and for good reason.
Uphold the right of the cartoonist to draw what he wanted all you want, but don't go making it an issue of freedom of speech. What it really is, is an issue about the limits of free speech, and whether or not that cartoon was inside or outside those limits. I happen to think it was. The protestors do not. But let's acknowledge that limits exist in the first place instead of positioning the issue in terms of absolute rights.
For people to say that we should have absolute free speech in society, I would caution them to be careful what they wish for because they just might get it.
posted by Road Hammer @ 6:49 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Hammer, I disagree entirely. If we do not vigorously defend free speech in this instance, how strong will this freedom be fifty years from now? The bottom line is, as George Will pointed out last Sunday, Muslims must drop their sense of entitlement to go through life without taking offence.
Your right to point out that no rights are absolute. However, your comparison to yelling fire in a crowded theatre and similar examples are off base. The basis for restricting free speech in those situations is that others are directly put at physical risk by the speaker's words. Not so with the cartoons. Political satire, no matter the quality of it, is a legitimate form of political expression and it must be protected at all hazards.
Every day fiercely anti-Semitic publications are produced in the Middle East. Christ is defamed every day in the United States.
We cannot allow extreme Islamism to encroach on chersihed freedoms,
Oh, I'm not saying that we shouldn't defend free speech or that the chronically offended should be the arbiters of what is acceptable discourse or not. What I'm saying is that we need to recognize that there is no such thing as free speech before we beat our chests and get all sanctimonious about it.
It is intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Here's an example of how there's no pure freedom of speech in Canada.
All of those people who are wrapping themselves up in the language of rights should realize that what it's really about isn't free speech, but the use of this cartoon by radicals as a recruiting tool to swell their (depleted) ranks. And if you think Muslims should learn how to take a punch, just say so instead of wrapping yourself up in this "rights" talk.
Hammer, there is no such thing as free speech? That's a bit extreme. Just because a freedom is not absolute, and none are, does not negate its status as a freedom.
We do not permit someone to scream "fire" in a theatre. Fine. Does it follow that we do not enjoy freedom of expression in Canada? No.
We do not allow an educator to teach hateful lies to a captive audience of students. Good. Does that mean we do not enjoy freedom of expression? Absolutely not.
The government has the power to conscript. Does that mean we do not enjoy the right to life? Of course not.
If we do not have freedom of expression in Canada or Denmark or the US, do we have any freedoms at all? If not, why did you support the war in Iraq again?
I didn't say there is no such thing as free speech. I said there's no pure freedom of speech in Canada.
There is a difference, and those who are invoking it as a long-held right are using that platitude as a cloak when a more accurate description of what they are saying is "Too bad, Muslims, I reserve the right to piss you off by insulting Mohamed and I really don't care if you don't like it. Deal."
I would say that "freedom of speech" is more an ideal than anything else because we have many restrictions on what can and cannot be said in society. That's all.
No Hammer, what people are saying is "Muslims, you may legitimately offended - but you will not intimidate us or stifle our right, prerogative, or whatever you want to call it, to criticize religion". Sanctimony and chest thumping aside, that is a right.
Agree ... sanctimony and chest thumping aside.
Post a Comment
<< Home