Harpoon Siddiqui, state censorship’s biggest fan: You have to give Harpoon Siddiqui credit. Another pundit might have avoided the subject of “hate speech” mere days after a Canadian Arab Federation executive was heard to "f**k Canada" on the occasion of its birthday, and it was revealed that a Muslim U of T student would not be charged with a hate crime despite having said stuff that would make even Jim Keegstra and David Ahenakew blush. Not our Harpoon, though. He’s determined to brazen it out:
Where do you stand on the classic Canadian issue of freedom of speech vs. hate? There's the constitutionally guaranteed free speech. And there are anti-hate laws, under the Criminal Code as well as the federal and provincial human rights codes.
The Supreme Court has upheld both sets of laws. Neither trumps the other. They work in balance.
But of late, Canadians are deeply divided on the issue:
• A small but noisy lot favours unfettered free speech and no anti-hate laws. A less absolutist sub-group feels that if we must legislate against hate, we had better do it under the Criminal Code, which demands a higher proof for conviction. Let's not have human rights commissions refereeing free speech.
The media are in this group – in the company of libertarians.
• Many Canadians still support anti-hate laws. Some among them, though, want those laws applied mostly in areas of concern to them.
Yes, they'd say, hear complaints about anti-Semitism and gay bashing but not about anti-Islamism.
Partly because of these competing forces and partly because of differences in jurisdictions, we have ended up with a hodgepodge system.
The federal and several provincial rights commissions do not hear complaints against the media. But the ones in Alberta and B.C. do.
All commissions curb hate on the Internet. But the ones that won't regulate the media don't know what to do with media websites.
Richard Moon of the University of Windsor, an expert on freedom of expression, suggested Ottawa get out of Internet policing. Recently the federal commission responded that it does have a role in rolling back web-based hate, which can be spread fast, far and wide.
That's where the matter stands, awkwardly…
No, Harpoon, that’s where Islamists and leftist ideologues stand, triumphantly. My letter:
What a funny concept of “free speech” we have here in Canada. The way it seems to work is that Islamists have the freedom to say whatever hateful things they want about Christians, Jews and, of course, “Zionists,” knowing full well that authorities will never call them to account for their hateful words. Meanwhile, if you’re, say, a First Nations leader who makes similarly hateful comments about “the Jews” you can count on being dragged through the courts, and if you’re a Christian clergyman who happens to write a letter to an editor criticizing homosexuality, you’ll be hauled in front of a “human rights” body and forbidden to weigh in publicly on the subject for the rest of your life. And if you’re someone who supports Israel and has the temerity to protest the way the Jewish state is being systematically slandered and smeared in plays such as Seven Jewish Children, at conferences such as the one recently held at York University devoted to “the one state solution” (i.e. Israel’s demise), and by anti-Zionists such as George Galloway, you can count on Haroon Siddiqui and other powerful media voices to slam you for expressing your views.
It’s not, as Siddiqui suggests, that our “hate law” is in danger of being seen as an ass. It’s that Canadians are asses for thinking that state censorship has any place in a free society, and for tolerating a law that is so thoroughly asinine and so inconsistenly applied.
Template by Splinder.com | header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de