No Better Than Ezra?

Two funny things about freedom of speech:

1) Defending it makes for strange bedfellows.

2) An awful lot of people seem to defend it only when the speech in question matches their own beliefs.

Freedom of speech is supposed to be a bedrock principle of Western democracy, but it's been under attack from all sides pretty much since it was enshrined in various constitutions. We're supposed to be able to spout off whatever opinion about whatever topic, provided that - (sentence breaks off to list a vast array of exceptions to this rule advanced by a vast array of individuals and advocacy groups). It seems intuitively correct to, say, ban Neo-Nazi groups from distributing flyers in high schools or something equally outrageous, but at some point one starts falling down the proverbial slippery slope.

Recently, for example, a friend and I were discussing the case of former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, who last year was dragged in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission for his publication of the infamous "Danish cartoons" depicting an image of the Prophet Muhammad (visual depictions being, as I understand it, forbidden in the Muslim religion). 

These HRCs operate under shady terms, however well-intentioned they may be. All it takes is one complaint to initiate a hearing, and the complainant, win or lose, does not have to pay any associated costs. The "defendant" in each case, however, must pay out of their own pocket. Not that the legal jargon applies - nothing much is legal about the HRCs, where decisions don't have to be based on any definitive legal standard and "sentences" can be made up on a whim. It's simply up to the HRCs themselves to determine whether a "defendant" has to face sanctions for offending some element of the public. Can't stress enough that it isn't about hate speech, a crime that is legally codified. Anyone who makes any statement that offends anyone else could potentially find themselves in front of an HRC. Levant, after having gone through the process, has responded with the publication of a book about the HRCs.

Levant is a right wing-nut of the first order, so it was with some distaste that I found myself arguing on his behalf with a friend who suggested, probably rightfully, that Levant likely published the cartoons to stir the pot rather than uphold some kind of holy journalistic principle. But I'm pretty absolutist about this freedom of speech stuff, so I held my nose and defended a guy I'd probably smack in the nose if I got a chance.

Then there's the case of British MP George Galloway, who was recently barred from speaking in Canada on the grounds that he had provided material support for the Hamas government in Gaza. Apparently, it's this material support and not Galloway's anti-war, pro-Palestinian opinions that prompted our free nation to close the door on him. Mind you, Galloway has made the seemingly fair point that Hamas is a democratically elected government and that, if you want to help the innocent victims of armed conflict in the region, you have to deal with said region's democratically elected government whether you like it or not.

One would think that Levant, while his politics represent the other end of the spectrum, would have some sympathy for Galloway's plight. But one would be wrong. In this blog post, Levant commends the Canadian government's decision. In his mind, of course, this case isn't about free speech.

So defending freedom of speech made me, if only temporarily, an ally of the execrable Ezra Levant. And Ezra Levant, a free speech absolutist, happily abandons those principles - or at least, happily hides behind legal loopholes - when it comes to people whose opinions he doesn't like.

Thankfully, there's always Christopher Hitchens. Having pissed off pretty much everyone in the course of his career, Hitchens is eminently qualified to speak about how important it is to be able to do just that. And so I close with his position on Galloway's Canada ban.

My position? Leaving aside hate speech, which is a legally codified (if contentious and difficult to enforce) crime, I feel like one either supports free speech or one doesn't. Democracy sometimes isn't for the faint of heart or the easily offended. And it doesn't only belong to the people who agree with you.