“I was hoping for a fruit basket, not a threat to prosecute,” says controversialist Ann Coulter about the menacing letter she got from the provost of the University of Ottawa. [Big Government, Popehat, Legal Blog Watch, WSJ Law Blog] Part of Coulter’s Canadian tour was subsequently called off after security officials said they could not guarantee her safety from protesters. [Moynihan/Reason “Hit and Run”] More: Mark Steyn, Binks. The somewhat attenuated nature of Canada’s rights of free speech is a topic familiar to our readers.
30 Comments
From the “if you strike me down, I will become more powerful” files…
I think it would be pointless to try to convince these kinds of petty fascists to knock it off based on morality alone. If they don’t believe in free speech already, you are not likely to convince them.
But i suggest they ask themselves this. How much free publicity did they just give Ann? How many books will this whole controversy move? if the goal is to prevent the spread of her ideas, well heckovajob there, liberal fascists. You have made her into an alluring forbidden fruit. You have made it rebellions and cool to read her stuff.
Seriously, I never even heard of Ezra Levant until your thug human rights commission came after him.
Btw, everyone remember this next time you hear of a liberal complain about death threats over the health care bill. That’s not to excuse it, but just to point out how selective they are in their outrage.
“Part of Coulter’s Canadian tour was subsequently called off after security officials said they could not guarantee her safety from protesters. ”
Hollow complaint. Sounded like a manufactured excuse when the russians used it to boycott the LA games. Sounds like a manufactured excuse by Coulter to skip out here too. And by skipping out she got some of her message across to far more people than any single speaking engagement would have while allowing the thugs to appear all the more thuggish.
If you know that the claim was manufactured, nevins, I would encourage you to cough up some evidence.
Ann Coulter is in the business of selling books. This is a literary Streisand Effect. The fact that I enjoy reading them makes me enjoy it even more.
I don’t know that the letter was “menacing”. It reminded her that the legal climate is different here. It was boneheaded on a number of levels, but “menacing” is a bit much.
Look, free speech is not an absolute even in your own fair country. Canadians have drawn the lines differently about where those limits lie, though not vastly different except in areas around hate speech. Certainly those protesting Coulter’s appearance had the right to express their objection to it, for example. I think this blog vastly overstates the “menace” from institutions like the Human Rights Commission, and wants to project American libertarian values on a country with a different history, culture and political philosophy. There is some merit in the argument that protecting groups from hate speech furthers democratic values. I know that makes y’all apeshit ’cause it wouldn’t fly in the US, but, different strokes, right?
“There is some merit in the argument that protecting groups from hate speech furthers democratic values. ”
In what way? I could see an argument for a restriction on speech that’s likely to have an immediate effect of inciting violence is probably worthwhile…but labeling opinions you don’t like as hate speech to make it easier to keep out of the limelight (not that it works that way, as this case indicates) seems a serious overstepping of logical bounds.
“but labeling opinions you don’t like as hate speech”
… which is TOTALLY not the way it works, though you’d never know it from the things you read, in particular on this blog.
The test under the Canadian Human Rights Code is “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination [sex, race, disability, etc.]”
So it’s not just “we don’t like it”. It has to target an identifiable group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, and it has to be “likely” (not “may” — “likely”) to expose a person of that group to hatred or contempt (not unpleasantness or an unwelcome idea).
The application of this law is also limited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides that everyone has the fundamental right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”.
That’s right, despite what you read on this blog (or hear from Ann Coulter), Canadians have enshrined freedom of speech (expression) in their Constitution.
Obviously not, Gumby, per your 3rd paragraph. You don’t understand what free speech means at all, if (in your idiotic opinion) it means one can only talk freely about certain things, and one should not say anything that would perturb the feelings of certain groups of people (white people aren’t one, so sorry!).
You may indeed have some free speech clause enshrined in your constitution, but obviously nobody is paying it any heed. Don’t worry, we’ve got the same problem down here wrt our Amendment X.
That’s right, despite what you read on this blog (or hear from Ann Coulter), Canadians have enshrined freedom of speech (expression) in their Constitution.
Unfortunately they are prevented from exercising it.
The same thing happened to the American Renaissance conference in Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C. — death threats from “anti-racists” against the hotels scheduled to host it forced its cancellation. Thus far, this shocking blow to free speech has interested neither the MSM nor nor law enforcement.
But you can be sure that if someone from the “Tea Party” movement yells at a Congressman, the FBI and the press will be all over it.
“Hate Speech” is best defined as speech that some people hate to hear.
Dave Linclon, as soon as you venture into insults, you’ve lost. Anyway, the problem is framing this argmuent in absolutist terms — the “either you have free speech or you don’t” stance. As was said, there are limits to free speech even in the US. Defamation, copyright, public order (ie bullhorns at 3 am aren’t protected, threats of violence). Canada adds speech likely to expose people to hatred or contempt to that list of legal limits. And that limit is limited by the Constitution, and if a body like a human rights tribunal oversteps its bounds, there are legal remedies. C’mon, this is a blog for lawyers, right?
Anon Attorn, aren’t the death threats “free speech” too? Doesn’t preventing death threats and notionally infringing someone’s “right” to utter a death threat actually protect the speech of the American Renaissance speakers, who otherwise might choose not to take the risk of speaking?
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
Bob
My favorite recent Canada free speech story was when protesters carrying signs that said “Stop the Tamil Tigers” were investigated by police for possible hate crime against Tamils.
I’m quite happy with proclaiming American exceptionalism, if only in connection with limiting “incitement” prosecutions to utterances that present a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action, as opposed to hurting feelings.
Ken, show me any legislation, anywhere, that protects “feelings”. You can’t, and you are not arguing in good faith.
And police responding, drearily, to a complaint, is not the same thing as a full scale investigation and shutting down a protest. Show me the harm. In fact, show me the link that describes the draconian actions of the police here.
In fact, ****other than slogans***, show me the argument against laws against hate speech.
I am going to cast this in terms of anti-semitism because, being Jewish, I am much more aware of it. Howeve I believe these thoughts illuminate the general condition.
First, the question of whether something is indeed ‘hate speech’ is grey area. nevitably it becomes a bureaucratic grey as in Europe where you can’t say nasty things about Jews, because that’s contrary to the law, but you can say anything about ‘Zionists’; so ‘Zionist’ becomes a code word for ‘Jew’ and you’re back where you are, except people are annoyed about restrictions on speech.
Second, by banning ‘hate speech’ you drive it underground. I’d rather know who my enemies are when they open their mouths to utter idiocies. It’s easier to combat.
Bob
gumby,
Ken, show me any legislation, anywhere, that protects “feelings”.
An example is the very legislation you cited: “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination [sex, race, disability, etc.]”
What do you think “hatred” and or “contempt” is? They are both feelings. They are both highly subjective.
Show me the harm.
You don’t believe that being investigated by the police is harmful?
[…] grounds of forbidden opinion content. More on “hate speech” here; also note our recent post on Canada and Ann Coulter, where an anonymous visitor is defending Canada’s speech-penalizing […]
“13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
It was this provision that, for instance, subjected Ezra Levant to a lengthy and expensive inquisition because the magazine he worked for published cartoons.
“Show me the harm.”
In another bout of American exceptionalism, I will indicate that I prefer our system, in which such a vague and overbroad law would be declared unconstitutional in part because it chills speech — in other words, because there’s a credible fear some professionally censorious bureaucrat will drag you into an HRC inquisition for years, people will be strongly influenced to avoid talking at all. Police feeling that there’s a credible basis to investigate a sign saying “Stop The Tamil Tigers,” rather than saying “don’t bother us with political slogans or insults,” is a symptom of the problem.
Does it mean nothing to you that the consultant the CHRC hired to prepare a report on the issue recommended that Section 13 be scrapped, a conclusion the professional and vigorous censors who get their paycheck from suppressing speech are now desperately trying to bury, minimize, and discredit?
By the way, gumby: say I wanted to publish an op-ed in a Canadian newspaper this week excoriating the Catholic Church for the revelations about official knowledge of and failure to prevent child abuse that came out this week. I don’t attribute any evil to Catholics as a group, but suggest that the Church has acted like a criminal enterprise and that leadership has acted in an evil manner.
Are you trying to tell me that in Canada right now, that there is no credible threat that someone will file a complaint with the CHRC or one of the provincial analogues? If they do, are you trying to tell me that the complaint will be dismissed quickly and inexpensively as violating free expression rights?
Western democracies , for hundreds of years , have progressed without vague Charter provisions, and Human Rights Commissions. The present legal framework is more than sufficient ,. If we were wise we would get rid of stifling HRC’s . I felt freer when I was a child than I do now in this politically correct society.
Eventually the Canadian Charter of Rights , will cause absolute mayhem. By the way, no mention anywhere of personal responsibility.
A Canadian here, one who objects to the University of Ottawa’s conduct.
One key problem I have with the “There’s nuance! Free speech isn’t absolute!” argument is that it really doesn’t get to the heart of the matter.
First, THAT there is a hate speech provision in the Code with enunciated circumstances does not somehow rectify a core problem with such laws, either here or elsewhere: they MUST be vague, and are therefore extremely subjective, and thus subject to manipulation and unjust, arbitrary application. For instance, take a phrase like “Yankee go home”. I sincerely doubt this would merit hate speech charges in Canada, but if you replaced ‘Yankee’ with another group – insert your own (national) epithet here – it very well might. Even “Mexicans Go Home”, perhaps? And yet I have a number of American friends who, while living in Canada and overtly identified as American, had their persons and physical property repeatedly assaulted. This seems to meet the criteria of the law, but yet hate speech charges for what is tantamount to a political statement in Canada would be unthinkable. The law, to the extent it is supposed to apply equally and without discrimination, is broken and subject to personal prejudices. That in itself is extremely dangerous.
More to the point, such criteria, when not controlled with a tight leash, have a habit of turning into oppressive tools. Hence, in France, banning the burka is considered a legitimate response for many reasons roughly analogous to those for which Coulter is being slammed by her Canadian opponents – a desire to preserve public order and safety, and to have the state enforce the state’s definition of relatively homogeneous national values.
To give another (brief) example, take a look at Singapore’s constitution. They have the same British-sourced legal tradition and their rights are practically word-for-word copies of what one finds in the Canadian Charter. And yet, for Singapore, a reasonable and demonstrably justifiable limitation on freedom of speech can include pornography and criticisms of the government. (The government has a reputation to uphold, so it can sue its critics for defamation. Can you imagine such a thing happening in Canada or the US?) In other words, rights restrictions get the same warning as small penises: it’s not necessarily the size, but what you do with them. And they (hate speech restrictions, not small penises) are applied seemingly arbitrarily at an alarmingly frequent rate.
Another largely salient issue that nobody’s bringing up is that there’s a distinction between the ex post facto laying of charges from the Criminal Code to someone who committed a crime (in this case, hate speech), and what the U of O did. The U of O is perfectly welcome to control itself, as according to Canadian jurisprudence it is NOT a government body and therefore not subject to the Charter. They didn’t ban Coulter for a crime she had committed, but they chose to restrict this person from speaking on their campus.
That said, insofar as the university pretends it is acting impartially, it is a little rich for them to present worries about violence and crimes being committed as their official reason, specifically when these things did NOT arrive when Coulter spoke earlier in Calgary. And, I might emphasize, the police don’t appear to have laid any charges.
Even IF there were such a presumption that bad things might happen, however, it remains a terrible excuse. Presumably, if a Black or Muslim rights activist were threatened by a neo-Nazi group, the university would hire extra security and put the talk on. Were they to decline in the face of threats, we have a restriction of speech by another group based on threats of violence, which is the exact opposite of protecting free expression. In fact, an almost identical scenario is the textbook example Hayek used to show how a classically liberal state must nevertheless undertake POSITIVE action (e.g. protecting unpopular speakers, protestors, etc.) in order to ensure a NEGATIVE right (e.g. free speech). Again, the university is NOT subject to the Charter as the State proper would be, but I think the example demonstrates that the university is using a poor excuse.
Speaking from personal experience as a recent graduate who organized libertarian/conservative-themed talks at a different Canadian university, this “security” worry is a favorite of university administrations imposing what I strongly suspect to be a political bias in their consent. It’s easily justifiable, subjective and therefore hard to identify what criteria must be met, and it imposes obligations and costs back on the group organizing the event, which (being time-sensitive and influenced by financial factors) is a sure fire way to shut it down for administrative reasons.
The worst part about this is that Canadians get their way, despite it being an awful precedent, and Coulter gets another reason to stand on her soapbox. As a libertarian, I don’t think Coulter is overall a help for advancing the cause of conservatism or libertarianism, and yet this kerfuffle just fuels her fire.
In short, everyone’s wrong except me.
No one disputes this. The problem is that they didn’t express their objection to Coulter’s views, they prevented her from expressing them, which violated both her rights and the rights of those who wished to hear her.
Speaking as a Canadian of decidedly left-wing views, in addition to the violation of freedom of speech, I consider this incident to have advanced Coulter’s cause , not ours. The best way to expose the foolishness of the views of vicious and ignorant twits like her is to publicize them.
“The best way to expose the foolishness of the views of vicious and ignorant twits like her is to publicize them”
I think the vicious and ignorant twits have been exposed, and they are not her.
Both Ann Coulter and her censors are vicious and ignorant twits.
And let’s not forget that Coulter is hardly a free speech hero. She attempts to incite violence against protesters, and calls anyone to the left of Joe McCarthy a traitor. She’s a bully who can dish it out but not take it.
But asshattery is not a zero-sum game. One can detest both her and her censors.
Thanks, that was far more productive than “give me liberty or give me death” and whatnot.
Semper
> wants to project American libertarian values on a country with a different history, culture and political philosophy.
Yeah, we believe in freedom and democracy. And the cannucks apparently don’t.
> There is some merit in the argument that protecting groups from hate speech furthers democratic values.
Slavery is freedom! We must suppress dissent to express dissent.
Gumby
> “but labeling opinions you don’t like as hate speech”
> … which is TOTALLY not the way it works, though you’d never know it from the things you read, in particular on this blog.
When a virulently anti-semitic imam can use the human rights commission to attack ezra levant for publishing the mohammed cartoons as part of a news story discussing the controversy, without the imam himself getting in trouble, what exactly are we supposed to think.
And you know, even the most racist and vile points of view are… points of view.
> The test under the Canadian Human Rights Code is “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination [sex, race, disability, etc.]”
Which explains why Christian ministers have been prohibited from quoting the parts of the bible condemning homosexuality.
> The application of this law is also limited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides that everyone has the fundamental right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”.
Which means the whole thing must be a dead letter, then right? Because the two are not compatible.
> That’s right, despite what you read on this blog (or hear from Ann Coulter), Canadians have enshrined freedom of speech (expression) in their Constitution.
Hey, so have the Chinese. But constitutions are not self-executing. They rely on people willing to enforce it, and like in China, canaduh has recently proven wanting.
> Anyway, the problem is framing this argmuent in absolutist terms — the “either you have free speech or you don’t” stance. As was said, there are limits to free speech even in the US. Defamation, copyright, public order (ie bullhorns at 3 am aren’t protected, threats of violence).
The difference is that our regulations are strictly content neutral. A bullhorn at 3 am is the same problem whether you are shouting “I hate Nazis” or “I hate gays.” So we are absolutists in our dedication to content neutrality.
> And that limit is limited by the Constitution, and if a body like a human rights tribunal oversteps its bounds, there are legal remedies.
Until Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant came along, the conviction rate was 100%. I am sure they were all fair trials.
> Ken, show me any legislation, anywhere, that protects “feelings”.
The legislation you just cited. What is contempt but an attitude that hurts your feelings?
> Show me the harm.
The harm is in millions of people who previously might have spoken their mind but now won’t.
Lipton
> Inevitably it becomes a bureaucratic grey as in Europe where you can’t say nasty things about Jews, because that’s contrary to the law, but you can say anything about ‘Zionists’; so ‘Zionist’ becomes a code word for ‘Jew’ and you’re back where you are, except people are annoyed about restrictions on speech.
My favorite was a pro-palestinian idiot who wrote “death to all juice.” People laughed thinking the guy was anti-semitic and stupid. But he wasn’t stupid. Er, I should say, he was stupid, but he didn’t misspell anything. he figured if he said juice he could have plausible deniability if they call him anti-semitic. He also put the word “zionist” in parenthesis before “juice,” apropos your point. The only difference was that he couldn’t be prosecuted for being an anti-semitic idiot, anyway, so the only consequences he was trying to avoid was us denouncing him.