Free speech falls prey to 'human rights'
Ian Hunter
National Post
Monday, August 18, 2003
Time was when freedom of speech was considered the cornerstone of democracy. No more -- at least not in Canada. Of course, Canadians are not very keen on democracy, either, being content to be ruled in perpetuity by a combination of courts and the Liberal party.
Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and by Section 2 of our Charter of Rights. Everyone likes rights on paper; for that matter, we like free speech, too, as long as the speech in question is soothing, anodyne and we happen to agree with it. We don't much like freedom for speech that offends us, or with which we disagree.
Take the case of British Columbia high school teacher Chris Kempling. Mr. Kempling is an exemplary teacher, as principals and students, past and present, have attested. But Mr. Kempling is a Christian and, as such, he believes homosexuality is "not something to be applauded," to use his own words. A majority of Canadians may agree with Kempling on this, but the human rights industry and the pseudo-intellectuals do not agree with Mr. Kempling, and therefore we must all keep silent.
The British Columbia College of Teachers suspended Mr. Kempling for "conduct unbecoming a teacher." This decision just might be understandable if Mr. Kempling had expressed his views in school. But he didn't. He expressed them in a letter to the editor of his local newspaper. So, off with his head! -- well, not yet his head, so far just his teaching licence.
Then there was Hugh Owens, a Saskatchewan prison guard, fined for citing (not quoting, just citing) Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.
Then there was Toronto printer Scott Brockie, hauled before our version of the Inquisition -- a human rights tribunal -- and fined for turning down printing business from homosexual activists.
And the case of the Christian couple in Prince Edward Island who shut down their bed and breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts under their own roof.
But perhaps I had better stop there; I am no longer sure that mentioning the ham-fisted totalitarianism of Canadian human rights commissions is safe. Perhaps overnight it has become "offensive" (in Canada, synonymous with illegal) to point out what human rights commissions are up to. When you cease to be governed by the rule of law and are governed instead by the caprice of judges, you can't be too careful.
This trend to subordinate free speech to offended feelings is not confined to Canada, although this is one area (often, I think, the only area) where Canadians may justifiably claim to be world-beaters.
When the Vatican issued its categorical statement on homosexual unions last month, it was denounced by all the sort of people the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would consider putting on a panel.
In The Globe and Mail, for example, columnist Heather Mallick warned the Pope henceforth to stay out of Canada -- on pain of, well, something akin to ex-communication from the sistership of all right-thinking (which is to say, left-thinking) cognoscenti. She also wrote: "Churchy people have no say in government, and that's all she wrote." I confess to finding that sentence frightening precisely because it is true.
To Mallick I say, fair enough, this is why free speech exists: to allow people like you to sound off, restrained only by the law of defamation, without the fear that by speaking your mind you are likely to have your livelihood removed or wake to hear the midnight knock upon your door. But how come Heather Mallick enjoys that right but not Chris Kempling? Why is any form of rhetoric allowable so long as it is directed against the Roman Catholic Church, but fawning subservience is the only thing permissible when the subject is gay rights?
As soon as the Vatican's statement was released, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned Catholic bishops there that any distribution of it, even in churches, could lead to prosecution and jail under Ireland's "hate crime" laws. Likewise in Canada, any biblical or religious objection proffered against homosexual "marriage" is routinely descried either as "homophobia" or "hate."
This is an effective political technique because it scares many people into silence. But it is fatal to free speech and, ultimately, it is fatal to democracy.
We need to remember that free speech does not mean freedom for the speech we agree with. Such speech needs no legal protection. If free speech means anything, it means protecting the speech we find disturbing, abhorrent, offensive.
Put simply: In Canada it is the Chris Kemplings whom the law needs to protect, not the Heather Mallicks.
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=18E39E85-588D-4A2E-A59B-43352407DF70
