(Preamble: As is usual, my posts
reflect an opinion, hopefully with credible support. I relish debate,
discussion on anything I write about so don’t hesitate to pose
another viewpoint either by commenting on the post or emailing me at
gg.epp41@gmail.com.)
 |
| On Mackinac Bridge, January, 2016 |
Let’s begin with the obvious:
physically, anyone can say anything he/she wants, wherever and
whenever the mood and incentive present. Senate page, Brigette
Marcelle, can whip out a “Stop Harper” placard during the throne
speech and parade it in front of the then-prime minister. We are free
to stand in front of the Post Office locally and assail patrons with
a religious or political message. If we have the nerve, no one will
stop us from standing up in church and denouncing the pastor
mid-sermon.
The issue so much in the news these
days is not free speech, really, it’s the effects and
consequences of speech, period. A letter in Harper’s
Magazine over the signatures of 150 “names of note” posited that
we’re too “illiberal” in the consequences we mete out for the
expression of unpopular opinions. (Columnist/author Malcolm Gladwell
signed, but tweeted that he signed it because
he disagreed with the views of some other signatories and
wasn’t his right to do so exactly what the letter was about?)
Many a professor or teacher has lost his/her job for promulgating
unpopular opinions—like the Holocaust never happening, or that aids
is a homosexual disease—and I daresay that to teach that socialism
is the economy of the future would in most any American university
right now signal time to update one’s resume. That’s not an
equivalent case to a brother-in-law praising Trump at a family
gathering. Call it free speech or whatever, there are substantial
gradations in the offense speech delivers and the consequences that
apply . . . that should or shouldn’t apply.
If I
hold an unpopular opinion, the expression of it in my community comes
down to a personal judgment, including the weighing of consequences.
I think we all assume that the world would be better if others would
see sense and adopt our opinions, whether we’re with the majority
or the minority. Holding a minority opinion will always be the weaker
position, and so consequences for expressing a given opinion
(especially on matters of far-reaching consequences) will always seem
harsh simply because dissenters will be louder, more numerous, often
by far. And so, the cry for having the right to express
minority opinions generally comes off as the complaints of
“victims,” which fact doesn’t consider that the right to
express an opinion and to
express opposition to that opinion are equal rights or are no rights
at all.
Given the right
circumstances, most of us can be deluded into thinking that “sticks
and stones may break [one’s] bones, but words can never hurt
[one].” Indeed, the assault rifle probably pales in its ability to
do harm when compared to the tongue. “The pen is mightier than the
sword,” primarily because it can lead to war or avert it while the
sword can only deal with the consequences of diplomatic failure.
Our words support
discrimination or they alleviate it; our words can encourage hope, or
promote despair; our words build people up or tear them down; and if
current social media are the yardsticks, can bring out the loving
best in us or encourage the hate-filled worst.
A recent social
media post claimed that the Holocaust had nothing to do with racism,
but rather that the NAZIs assumed Jews would leak government plans to
the enemy and the concentration camps were set up to prevent that.
Are the people promulgating this opinion to be protected from
criticism on the basis of their right to “free speech?” Or if a
person expressing such opinions is invited to address university
students on the Holocaust, should “free speech” protect that
person from protests by students? Certainly not, and not anymore than
would constitutional protection for exercising “the right to set
fire to things.”
If speech ceases
to merit consequences, then ignorance and erudition become equals.
Harm or benefit should set the benchmarks for the acceptability of
public utterance. Our nation, our provinces, our municipalities, our
communities are given stability by what we often call “a social
contract.” Speech—just like actions—shouldn’t be allowed to
diminish the value a stable social contract renders to us as
individuals. The attack on democracy we see happening south of the
border can certainly be blamed—in part, at least—on a
carelessness with truth modeled in the declarations and tweets of the
president, granting license for all kinds of divisive rhetoric in the
fringes of the nation by his example.
To declare that white
supremacist or racial slurs are guarded by the constitutional right
to free speech is a non sequitur. Diminishing a person’s
self-confidence, tarnishing a reputation by whatever means, lessening
a group’s chances of achieving equality in the nation, these are
crimes and speech is often the weapon of choice.
Perhaps something
needs to be said as well about that kind of positively-approached
jousting of opinions by which communities work their way to a
decision during times of controversy, particularly.
We may
underestimate the significance of our elections, for instance, which
are peaceful, and the results of which are accepted without rancour
or rebellion. We do have courteous (for the most part) habits to
inform us.
Something is
wrong in a family or community if certain subjects become taboo, or
if legitimate but differing opinions are stifled in the public forum.
Granted, to have the self-confidence to state and defend a minority
opinion, even where there is an existing commitment to unity, can be
wrenching; the first order of business must always be the
determination to extend a fair hearing to every individual.
Communities have too often so neglected the arts of dialogue that
minority views feel too threatened to give voice to their stances. If
it applies anywhere, then surely this is a place and situation where
“free speech” should make sense.
Nevertheless,
where pronouncements tend to undermine the social or community
contract, the penalties ought to be commensurate with the potential
damage in order to be just. A teacher indoctrinating vulnerable
students with a revisionist history hasn’t—probably—broken any
bones, but is the damage less than would be the actual
breaking of an arm or leg? Is it OK to wave an “All Lives Matter”
placard at “Black Lives Matter” demonstrators? If discrimination
against black persons is a problem, and if the demonstration is an
effort to persuade the public to accept changes that would alleviate
the problem, then efforts to water down the movement’s message with
such speech—even though reasonable generally—may be no less
criminal than driving a car into the demonstration. This is not free
speech; this is psychological, political arson.
By now, there is
far too much hurtful, harmful speech being propagated to allow us
even the dream of a just and honourable social contract, at least in
the internet forums. I’ve tried to engage in a number of
conversations online that fall into the “COVID 19 as political
hoax,” category as courteously as I’m able, hoping in my small
way to—I guess—impose my “Canadian Christian Social Democratic
Vision” on the hard-line, me-first-and-only dialogue. What I
realized early on is that opinions on both sides are driven less by
truth-seeking than by partisan loyalty. (Except in my case, of
course!)
What we’ve
agreed to in Western democracies is that majority opinions prevail,
and that they’re expressed meaningfully through the ballot box and
their legitimacy is honoured. It’s the heart of representative
democracy.
Perhaps,
strengthening the significance of that combined with better liberal
arts education is where our hopes for the future will lie.
