One more post on Free Speech

It has been quite the whirlwind of posts from both the left and right on the need either to restrict free speech or to allow it unfettered. It's pretty obvious I am in the latter group. And no, that doesn't mean I support neo-Nazi ideology.

Some of the worst arguments in favour of restricting free speech appear on the blogs of the Big City Lib and Jason Cherniak. Both seem to think that a law that makes it illegal to say or publish something that is "likely" to expose a group to hate or contempt is a good thing. Of course, defining "likely" is difficult, and BCL seems to think that getting nasty e-mails meets the threshold of this law. While it is certainly easy to turn away from the persecution of neo-Nazis under this law, it is the principle that is important, not the target. I will state for the record that I have no sympathy for, nor common ideology with, Nazis. Still, I fear that preventing these people from stating their views is dangerous. It is dangerous not because their ideas have merit but because it is the first step towards muzzling others. In fact it was only the first step. The second step was to go after people with firmly held religious beliefs.

Chris Kempling was fined by his union for writing a letter to the editor of his local newspaper that stated his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. He was invited to testify before a Parliamentary Committed in regards to Bill C-38 and his union again took disciplinary action against him. Only the intervention of NDP MP Bill Siksay and CPC MP Vic Toews ended that bit of oppression. At no time did Kempling advocate violence or hatred, only his religious beliefs which are explicitly protected under the Charter. Kempling's attempts to seek redress in the courts have all failed.

Hugh Owen was convicted by the Saskatchewan Human Right Commission for inciting hatred against homosexuals. His crime: Publishing an ad with references to Bible verses that condemn homosexuality. He didn't even quote them, just referenced them. Thankfully, that case has since been reversed on appeal, but the fact remains that a Tribunal found that the Bible was hate literature.

The third step is attempting to muzzle mainstream journalists for writings that offend.

I could go on with examples but I think my point is clear. What isn't clear is why our centre-left friends are so concerned about this kind of speech. I can only offer this explanation: They don't trust us. They don't trust that the average Canadian can see through specious arguments regarding world Jewry and the Zionist conspiracies. They don't trust us not to lynch gays because a Bible verse says homosexuality is wrong. They don't even trust us not to spend our money on "Beer and Popcorn" when our children have needs. It goes even further. Reading "progressive" blogs it becomes evident that we who do not believe as they do are backward, uneducated, and easily swayed. That we have been convinced to support other politicians than they do is evidence. It is because of our shortcomings that these elite feel that we need protection from words that might sway us, or influence us away from their truth. Simply, we are too stupid to be trusted with free speech.