The People shall not be deprived ...

 

Book, book - GGE

I’m guessing that few Canadians watch what could be called the “talking heads” television on late night in the USA and Great Britain, or in the political-junkie cable/YouTube video-streaming world: Piers Morgan, Jon Stewart, Alex Jones, Brian Tyler Cohen, Jordan Peterson, etc., etc. Mostly their interviews air as podcasts and they are unabashedly conservative- or progressive-leaning. A favourite theme popping up regularly is that of free speech, and that’s not surprising as their podcasts are dependent on their right to speak with little restriction.

Free speech—in the USA,  the “first amendment” to the constitution—guarantees that:

 “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text)

Most often, these days, sentiments in the First Amendment is read as opinions, which easily interprets then as “you are allowed to say whatever you want.” Perhaps that’s covered by some form of an old joke:, “In Nazi Germany you could say anything … once!” but just as the Second Amendment is misused in defense of a gun-ownership-free-for-all, the misinterpretation of the First Amendment is making of “free speech” a socio-political moré, when that was never the intent. 

The amendments are guarantees that the federal government will not enact laws that prevent states from establishing “well-regulated [armed] militias,” and that the federal government will not pass a law that criminalizes public utterances, whatever the topic. This is demonstrated in the very grammar of the amendments; it’s not a politically-driven interpretation.

Often, conservative talking heads use examples of universities denying visiting speakers a platform on campus as an example of the breaking of the First Amendment. It’s not. If the federal government enacted a law which effectively denied the person in question any platform, period, that would break the intent of the First Amendment. This confusion has given rise to the “cancel culture” mentality as it applies to the right to refuse to hear speech we choose not to hear. 

University undergraduates should not leave university before gaining a grasp of the essentials of every governance model that’s been tried, but that doesn’t mean that they should under the rubric of “free speech,” be compelled to listen to advocacy for one political philosophy or another. Propaganda is attempted indoctrination, it’s not aimed at the development of sound judgment resting on reliable evidence.

In the same amendment, the federal government is prohibited from enacting a law curtailing religious belief: Christian churches aren’t obligated to give equal time to other religions; their right to hold to their opinion that theirs is the only true faith hasn’t been abridged. Likewise, a university, being a public institution bound to uphold the laws and the rights of the state and nation, has a right—indeed an obligation—to ensure that curriculum and public obligation, expressed through the ballot box, match. Students are free to choose their university; many choose a parochial university, most a public institution. They attend or skip classes and events as they wish. It’s at these levels that who will and who will not be heard is ultimately made.

BUT, both faiths and universities must tread thoughtfully. We are a multicultural, multifaith democracy in Canada: to deny a congregation (say) an education on other faiths, to deny university students accurate knowledge of political, social alternatives is likewise foolish when the role of the citizen in a democracy like Canada is as critical as it is. However institutions walk the free speech/tailored-influences continuum, a steady diet of single-minded propaganda is unhealthy in a democracy. But the law cannot uphold the standards; only a generosity of spirit and courteous dialogue can do that. That—in a democracy—is the core curriculum so badly neglected these days.

Free speech is, after all, not license. You can go back to James 3: 1-12, then on to libel, slander, fraud and coercion laws to learn that weaponized speech is as dangerous as an AK-15, maybe even more so; that it can be means for harming individuals or masses of others practically goes without saying. 

The wary among us will recognize a flaw in much of the “free speech propaganda,” namely that it seeks to reduce or eliminate the consequences of uttering false, coercive, biased speech, the promulgation of misinformation and slanted or incomplete information to gain a political end. That one should be able to say publicly that which is untrue without consequences (so clearly illustrated in the Donald-Trump-before-the-law saga unfolding right now) is a lot like donating blankets to indigenous tribes but lacing them with the variola (smallpox) virus first. There exists no cover for weaponized speech in the First Amendment, or in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Granted, Free Speech can become a slippery subject. Jordan Peterson has taken a stand against what he calls “compelled speech” in Bill C-16, which extends non-discrimination provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to trans-gender individuals. It’s an oddity of the English language that gives rise to an apparent need for changing pronouns so that neither biological maleness nor femaleness is implied. (“Davida is feeling sick, so {she? he? they? herm?} won’t be coming.”) The  vast majority of Canadians don’t care if—when others talk about them—the pronoun used gives away their biological sex; a minority are made uncomfortable by this and wish people would use non-gender-specific pronouns when speaking about them. Peterson is wrong when he says using “they” instead of “he” or “she” is compelled speech; it only becomes an infraction when it plays into a situation of discrimination—in employment, college admittance, etc. As I understand Peterson, if a client or student would personally ask him to use a gender-neutral pronoun like “they,” he would oblige them. So would I, even though the use of a traditionally-plural pronoun connecting to a singular antecedent rasps across my English teacher sensitivities. I’ve already almost gotten over it!

Speech and writing are thought-conveyances; a bus is a physical-transport conveyance. A bus can be used to run over people you don’t like; speech can be the vehicle for gifting your good thoughts to others, but can also be the tool for inflicting slanderous, libelous, hurtful, careless thoughts upon them.

Before we decide where the boundaries for “what you can say freely” are to be found, we ought to get a better grasp on speech itself as a subject. A shallow “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” understanding is not enough knowledge of speech and writing processes and effects for a successful democratic community to base an understanding of what “free speech” really ought to mean.

But then, it’s on the petty mounds that we choose to fight and die because the mountains are too formidable and high for us to challenge. Propaganda in the political and commercial spheres is a treacherous speech mountain; reflexive pronouns, bathrooms, and sports participation for trans-gender persons are mole hills by comparison and capable of being conquered. (Some starting suggestions, re- pronouns:  develop and teach a dozen or so new pronouns to replace the sex-specific ones and get used to them gradually through schools; bathrooms: remove urinals and replace them and the current cubicles with booths with real walls and doors, substitute TOILETS for the MEN and WOMEN signs; let sports administrations decide if in their case a restriction on male to female gender transitioners poses a threat to their sport’s integrity.)

Next to the bare basics of reading, writing, speaking fluently, listening with understanding, it strikes me that negotiating skill is the most important language learning there is, particularly for sustaining a functioning democracy. Climate change, for instance, is almost universally accepted as real and human-contributed, if not human-made. The news is filled with speech on the subject: the federal voice is telling us that a new directive to fossil fuel industries to reduce the carbon content of fuels will help. Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Maritime provinces are appealing for the repeal of this policy since it will have a negative economic effect. There are many options for reducing CO² emissions, but ranking them, choosing among them requires negotiation that is less partisan and arbitrary than what we’ve become used to.

HOW TO TEACH LANGUAGE INDIFFERENCE: Give your 25 Grade 11 students Catcher in the Rye; stand in front of the rows of desks, read portions to them and explain “what they mean.”

HOW TO TEACH LANGUAGE FLUENCY AND NEGOTIATION SKILLS: Replace the desks with round tables for four. Have the four at each table read aloud selected portions of the first chapter. Have each table come up with a three-point plan of things to do first if this classroom of people were to find themselves shipwrecked on an uninhabited, jungle island, while you go table to table coaching their discussions. They should be conscious that they’re practicing negotiation just as one would practice the keyboard if piano playing was the goal.

My hat is off to the great teachers and parents who are being deliberate mentors in the art of negotiation, since it’s in the exercise of that art that free speech finally makes absolute good sense!

 

 

 

To Jab or not to Jab

 

Danielle Smith has just become premier of Alberta and wants to enshrine non-disclosure of vaccination status as a human right. Meanwhile, hearings are being held to determine if the Government of Canada was justified in invoking the Emergency Measures Act in response to the Freedom Convoy’s occupation of Ottawa. It feels like two chapters of the same book, doesn’t it?  

It’s become apparent that ignorance about the content of the British North America Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Constitution as it currently divides up federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions is no deterrent to holding strong but illogical opinions on matters governed by law and tradition in Canada. To hear Premier Smith hold forth on human rights and provincial jurisdiction is a bit like listening to old Uncle Mike arguing the medical merits of WD40 and Windex.  

Democracies generally divide themselves into what is the nation as a whole, what is provincial or state responsibility based on differing regions, and what can be decided municipally. The use of rivers that cross regions can’t be finally left to provinces and states to regulate or Edmonton could dump raw waste into the North Saskatchewan to the detriment of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Same principle applies to airports, international borders and declarations of war. In a pandemic, best bets would be on world government to plan the response, national planning would be second best, provincial third, but only if citizens don’t cross boundaries. Involving Ottawa or Regina in a decision to fill potholes on Second Avenue North in Saskatoon would be absurd; Ontario declaring war on Michigan likewise.  

As regards human rights and the decision not to accept vaccines, nothing new is needed. Going to a place where vaccines are administered and rolling up a sleeve has been an adult’s choice; no one has been compelled. To forfeit a job because it requires that personnel be vaccinated belongs with this choice; all employers are charged with exercising what they deem to be best practice in safeguarding employee and client safety and health. As long as vaccination is scientifically shown to lessen the likelihood of transmitting a virus or bacteria, the right of an employee to overrule standards that include vaccines is no more a valid argument than making smoking in the staffroom a human right, an employee choice.

 

I’m fully aware that the fear of vaccines is a real motivator for many. That there can be adverse reactions (even though they’re rare) and that pharmaceutical companies are maximum-profit oriented are not hollow concerns, and the perception that there might be persons behind the promotion of vaccines who are conspiring to risk the lives of the gullible for profit is not a huge stretch. At the same time, the observation that people like Alex Jones are profiting financially from promoting misinformation and falsehood impales already frightened people on the horns of a dilemma. The agony must be especially acute for parents of young children for whom the care for their health and education represents an onerous responsibility.

 

But this dilemma is a shared burden. While individuals and families struggle with their response to vaccines, masking and distancing, the national government faces difficult choices of what to do, how to do it and how much action is enough and not too much. Canada’s national response has been exemplary, in my view. Guided by communicable disease science, masks, vaccines have been made available to provincial healthcare administrations in a timely manner. Border security could have been enacted quicker and arguably lightened quicker as well, but what was decreed clearly had citizen safety front and centre.

 

But how should a government act and react when citizens refusing the mandates band together to force a policy that removes all consequences of their non-compliant choice? Calling their primary action to date a “Freedom” Convoy gives a clue to the driving sentiment, and this thinking is echoed in Danielle Smith’s contention that no one should be asked about their vaccination status, and that it be enshrined as a human right alongside freedoms of religion, speech, etc. The implication is that a nurse working in a hospital, say, need no longer have the right to know what precautions a colleague is taking to prevent the spreading of a communicable disease. Her rights to a feeling of safety are trumped by my right to make my health choices without consequence or reference to my neighbour's well-being.  

Like I said, it’s a shared dilemma and none of us—no matter what our stand is on vaccines—has the moral right to demand privileges that supersede the rights of a neighbour. Whether better civic education would help us settle our differences on subjects like this is debatable, but we all should at least know that the ballot box is the sacred decision-making right in a democracy, and that the challenge to democratic governance with means that include coercion and force puts democracies at risk.  

Human Rights, Political Rights

Browsing in the Amnesty International Annual Review for 2013 jogged my memory of a recently-heard declaration (I know not from whence it came) to whit: “There are no human rights, only political rights.” I concede that we use the phrase glibly, as if invoking a human right makes reference to something that is immutable, eternal and clearly understandable to anyone who is human.

      Political rights speaks of the privileges granted to citizens by a state, as in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are legally enforceable, as in the guaranteed right to participate in elections in Canada.

      Human rights implies that beyond the political rights and freedoms written into the laws of states (or not), there exists an overarching charter relevant to every human being born on earth, whether Canadian, Sri Lankan, Colombian or Irish. If such a universal charter exists, then a state—for instance—that denies its citizens the right to participate in their governance is in violation of that charter. 

     In contrast to political rights, history has shown us that human rights are, by and large, unenforceable—except through indirect and usually ineffective means like shunning, shaming, pleading, bargaining, threatening, etc. It's one thing for the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to declare that “Everyone has the right to education,” but the UN hasn't the means to prevent Boko Haram from bombing schools in Nigeria.

      Is an unenforceable right a right after all?

      The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a collectively-arrived-at attempt to enunciate an overarching charter, a visualization of what the dignified, contented life consists of for any person born on this earth. I am one of the lucky few; born in Canada, I experience political rights pretty well consistent with the UN Declaration. Had I been born an aboriginal Canadian or a female in rural Nigeria, not so much.

      Whether yours and my views on human rights tend more toward justice issues, democracy, humanitarian aid or possibly even the saving of souls in preparation for a next life, I'm sure we generally agree that the privileged and the powerful of this world owe the down-trodden a hand up. My choice has been, and continues to be, support for Amnesty International in their tireless work in support of persons suffering human rights abuses. Because Amnesty is non-sectarian and focused, it can do what sectarian organizations have found difficult, namely the supporting and/or rescuing of individuals whom neither political nor human rights charters and declarations have been able to protect.

      A friend once told me that he didn't like the language of rights because it smacks of demands for me, me, me without acknowledgement of related responsibilities to others. Certainly, we hear plenty of “I demand my rights” talk these days, but the squealing of privileged people selfishly suing for rights shouldn't deter us from recognizing that the means to dignified, contented life is being routinely stolen from the majority of our fellow humans by tyrannies, corporate exploitation, discrimination, crime, injustice and/or sheer neglect.

      Are there such things as basic, incontrovertible human rights? Among us privileged, it comes down to the question of whether or not we deserve the benefits we enjoy while others don't, both cases owing primarily to serendipitous accidents of birth.

      To begin lending your support to the fight for human rights world wide, please click here.