New era of freedom?

Editorial

The valiant chevalier who stands for civility in public discourse has a packed Daytimer. From raunchy TV to overheated activists to expletives in the House of Commons, everybody knows that civility is suffering a serious decline. Or, perhaps, in a 24-hour news cycle, we are just bombarded with more examples.

Justin Trudeau, the Liberal member of Parliament more famous as “the son of ...,” earlier this month emitted the profanity heard around the world or, at least, throughout the Canadian news media, Facebook and the blogosphere.

The impetus was a comment, offensive in itself, from Environment Minister Peter Kent. Kent, who had effectively prevented opposition MPs from attending the Durban summit on climate change, responded to a question from an NDP member with a dismissive comment that suggested she would have been better informed had she been at the summit. It was a petulant remark, but not nearly as petulant as Trudeau’s shouted comment toward Kent: “You’re a piece of shit.”

Trudeau defended himself later, claiming, effectively, temporary insanity. He also apologized, in a scene that may have owed more to his experience as a high school drama teacher than to anything average people would recognize as sincerity.

Almost as disappointing has been the response from some of Trudeau’s allies, who have asked why more of us are not similarly outraged. Some of us indeed may be, but have greater facility for expression. Parliamentary history is filled with passionate expressions that exhibit far greater wit.

Benjamin Disraeli, allegedly at least, was forced by Westminster’s speaker to withdraw the unparliamentary assertion that half the cabinet were asses.

“Mr. Speaker, I withdraw,” Disraeli was said to respond. “Half the cabinet are not asses.”

In fact, for Trudeau’s defenders to argue that the issue at hand – climate change – is just so significant that it deserves foul-mouthed interventions diminishes the millions of issues that evoke equally passionate devotion, but in whose service foul language has not been invoked. Will profanity be the new measure of justified outrage?

This incident has wider ramifications in part because this country is on the cusp of what will perhaps be the most significant discussion we have undertaken on the limits of free expression. Of course, no one is suggesting that the occasional foul-mouthed remark should be illegal. But several courts in the country are right now deliberating on the limits, if any, on certain types of expression, and Parliament is expected to take up the matter in the new year.

Immediately at hand is the fate of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which governs the electronic transmission of hate expression. The Harper government appears to be throwing its support behind a private member’s bill that would eliminate the section, which has resulted in a number of cases against not the purveyors of neo-Nazi or racist hatred, but against border-pushing journalists like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, as well as mainstream media outlets.

Other issues are in the spotlight as well, with a recent study of repression of free expression on Canadian campuses, most notably in the form of silencing or banning anti-abortion activists from using explicit and grotesque imagery. Over the past decade, of course, this paper has reported on the range of anti-Israel propaganda on campus, as well as incidents in which pro-Israel expression was threatened by intimidation or silenced by violence. While some in our community would like to see interventionist acts to stop events like Israel “Apartheid Week,” this approach is destined for failure. On many campuses in North America, this is a fight we will not win. If anyone’s voices are to be forcibly silenced, it is most likely to be those of Israel’s supporters, so our pragmatic best strategy – as well as the approach that best reflects our ancient values – is to defend the right of ideas to contend.

What it all comes down to is this: free people in a free country should be free to express themselves as they choose. In a free society, the limits on expression should not be imposed by lawmakers or courts but, rather, by social contract – by free people ourselves.

With few exceptions (such as the incitement of genocide) people should be allowed to express unpopular or offensive ideas, and others should be equally permitted to condemn and/or counter such notions. That being said, there are those from whom more is expected. Members of Parliament, the fortunate young people who attend post-secondary institutions and the public figures who serve, intentionally or not, as role models, should hold themselves to a higher standard. Trudeau failed on this measure.

In the new year, Canadian courts and Canada’s Parliament may open the door to a new era of unfettered free expression in this country. This should be welcomed as a step toward greater freedom – and greater personal responsibility.

^TOP