Exactly.
In other words, it is plain distrust of the abilities of one’s fellow citizens to see through the rantings of neo-Nazis that requires us to have these laws. It works on a sort of latter-day aristocratic premise, that we may be able to trust the good sense of a sociology professor but God help us if a mere plumber or secretary should be exposed to a Holocaust denier or someone whose tone gets a bit out of hand.
If there was a polite way to express my disdain for that sort of elitist bull, I would use it. But there isn’t. So I will just say it is wholly misconceived.
These elitist hate-speech laws erode democracy
- Date
James Allan
Illustration: michaelmucci.com
Neil Brown, QC, a Liberal minister in the Fraser government, has counselled Tony Abbott not to repeal our section 18C hate speech laws.
He says doing so risks ”giving the green light to racists”. Instead, he suggests a convoluted compromise that basically leaves in place the ”you can’t offend me” legislation.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but Brown and all the proponents of hate speech laws that legislate against ”offending”, ”insulting”, ”humiliating” or even ”intimidating” are wrong. They’re wrong on the facts. They’re wrong when they look overseas. And they’re wrong about what is needed in a healthy, well-functioning democracy.
Let’s start by playing the man, rather than the ball. Our hate speech laws were enacted in 1995. Brown was a cabinet member in a government years before that. If he thought not having these laws amounted to a green light, why didn’t the Fraser government enact these sort of illiberal laws?
First a few facts. In the US there are no hate speech laws of any kind. In France there are plenty. Where do you think Jews or Muslims are better integrated into society as equal citizens? I ask that question seriously, and can recast it using Germany and other countries with hate speech laws.
Do you do more for minority groups by encouraging a victim mentality or by asking them to grow a thick skin and, when insulted or offended or humiliated, to respond by saying why the speaker is wrong? The latter approach is recommended by every great liberal philosopher from John Stewart Mill onwards. And it was the basis on which the Fraser government did not legislate against hate speech.
Oh, then there is that bastion of political correctness, my native Canada, where the federal parliament last year repealed similar hate speech laws. Are Canada and the US places all hate speech law supporters will be avoiding because of all the green lights for racists?
Or are those green lights just plain bunk, because Brown doesn’t understand that the best response to racists is to speak back and say why they’re wrong, rather than turn them into martyrs?
Ezra Levant would agree:
