Ann Coulter, extreme right-wing American pundit is in Canada this week for three speaking engagements at universities across the country. Ignoring the hypocrisy of the Harper government for allowing her into the country while just a year ago denying entrance to Galloway (Ms. Coulter's ideological opposite), and that her appearances are being paid for by two private American right-wing advocacy groups, she hasn't exactly had the welcome mat thrown out for her. Provost Francois Houle from the University of Ottawa wrote Ms. Coulter a letter prior to her event, gently warning her that our laws governing freedom of expression vary slightly than the way she might otherwise be used to in her homeland, and it may behoove her to educate herself on the implications of spewing vitriol that could be discerned as hate speak under our laws.
If you haven't had the chance to read Provost Houle's letter in its' entirety, you can read it all here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/ann-coulter-told-to-watch_n_508406.html
Responding to this letter, poor Ms. Coulter is saying she is going to file protest under the charter citing this letter as being targeted for a hate crime. How bogus. Ms. Coulter didn't receive this letter because she's a member of "an identifiable group", she was singled-out based on her own history, actions and words. Surely she has to take responsibility for the words that come out of her mouth and must respect the laws of a nation she's visiting. Americans have perverted the right to "free" speech so much that they don't realize that there are times when saying horrible things about whomever you please are harmful and shouldn't be tolerated.
On the message boards today, I have had to explain to more than one American who, while they seemed to have a rational wariness about the slippery slope of censorship, eventually came to understand that there is a difference between spouting opinion and criminally inciting hate. It is too easy for Canadians to presume that everyone knows what is actually considered "hate" under Canadian law. We all just kind of grow up knowing that. At some point we're taught that fighting fair is important and Opinion is protected under free speech laws only up until the point where it could impinge upon another's rights as protected by the Charter. Inciting violence or bigotry against a group is illegal and a crime. No one has the right to inflict harm on others - and hate speech does exactly that. Even if you take away the direct, face-to-face confrontation between hater and victim, if we allow people to teach hate against others based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc., we are welcoming into our sphere bigotry of the worst kind. I don't want our kids hearing this and thinking that any part of it is true. I don't want any student in Canada falling for her crap.
We do not impose this law lightly, but neither would many Canadians want to violate it. I remember only one instance in the past decade or so where charges were brought on a teacher (R vs. Keegstra) because he was teaching his high school students anti-semitic propaganda and rhetoric. Aren't we glad that we have this kind of actionable law on the books, so the likes of a man imposing his evil on impressionable minds can be held accountable in a court of law?
I've battled with myself over the pros and cons of censorship and it does worry me with its' potential to be a slippery slope. However, I have faith that in our rational, just society, there are enough checks and balances to ensure that no such slips occur. This law has existed in Canada for decades - there has been no slippery slope. It is rarely used, but every Canadian knows that preaching hate is intolerable and against the law. Civil society is maintained because people know they are expected to behave respectfully. It does not shut down intelligent discourse, but rather enhances it.
Canadian laws are different than American because our core values intrinsic in our law-making originate from the opposite ends of the spectrum - Collectivism at its' best rather than Individualism at its' worst. It is laws like this one, guided by Canadian morals, that have made Canada the tolerant, civil nation that it is today. If laws keeping people accountable for what comes out of their mouths are what makes it possible to have constructive debate on the most controversial of topics, I'm all for it. Just as our democracy keeps our laws in line with our values, so then do our laws keep us in line in case we might think to stray.
We've all seen what hate-filled propaganda can do and how divisive and dangerous it can be - from Nazis to Jihadists to Born Agains who take it too far - It's dangerous. It becoming the norm under the "protection" of free speech, polarizes discussion and makes it impossible to see the merit in your opponent's arguments. Being "allowed" to say whatever you want means you don't ever feel the need to check yourself. Courtesy and respect dictate that you must, at times, check yourself.
So Ms. Coulter, the Provost wasn't being a bigot when he warned you in a restrained, respectful manner that you might indeed need to watch your tongue. He was trying to do you a favour. Unheeded, someone might actually hold you accountable for the crimes your country lets you perpetrate against innocents.
I kind of hope she sees all of this as a dare and tries to push us on it. I surely hope there will be an unarmed Mountie at hand, ready to take her into custody at the slightest provocation. Afterall, she's been warned!
No comments:
Post a Comment