In the final days of 2016, the small island nation of Cuba mourned the passing of a political giant. Meanwhile, next door, superpower America nervously welcomed as the latest occupant of its highest office a gigantic bigot. To be sure, Fidel Castro’s passing was not mourned but celebrated in Little Havana in Miami, while Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was lamented by most of the Americans who voted in their federal election.
By Len Findlay / Posted Friday September 8, 2017
In the wake of attacks in Charlottesville, Virginia there were a number of rallies in Canadian cities. The anti-racist counter-demonstrators hugely outnumbered their rally opponents, constituting phenomenal public solidarity against racism. There was much to be cheered in these events.
One thing dampened this amazing response. It was how, for some, denouncing hate slid into denouncing speech rights and into dangerous calls for governments to prevent rallies.
If we understand Donald Trump’s statement that there are two sides in the confrontation/demonstration in Charlottesville as a claim that there are two legitimate, morally serious, positions being presented in a debate about multiculturalism, then it is ignorant, disturbing, and harmful.
But if instead we understand his statement as a claim that under the First Amendment Nazis and anti-Nazis have an equal right to present their positions to the public - and an equal obligation not to use force to silence the other side - then he is not wrong.
Ryerson University made a mistake two days ago. It lost sight of its mission in cancelling an upcoming panel discussion featuring controversial speakers that included University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson and Rebel Media journalist Faith Goldy.
In early March of 2017, the Opinion editor at Maclean’s contacted me by email, inviting me to write a piece regarding the resignation of Dr. Andrew Potter as Director of the McGill Centre for the Study of Canada.
As a Brown woman, I have experienced some harassment over the years. On the mild side, acquaintances have inquired whether I am a Muslim fundamentalist, it has been suggested that I landed a faculty position because I am racialized, and the epithet “Paki” has been hurled at me on occasion. On the extreme side, a Molotov cocktail was placed under my mother’s car after we had an altercation with former White neighbors (they objected to our use of the front lawn, where extended family would sometimes gather for BBQ parties, Bhangra music and card-playing). The bomb never went off.
Should we expect our public institutions to protect our freedom of expression? The Toronto Public Library made a controversial decision in July 2017 to permit a memorial to the late Barbara Kulaszka to be held in a rental space in one of the library’s branches. Ms Kulaszka, a former librarian, was a lawyer best known for her legal defence of Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. Many people registered their objection to the event, both before and after it took place. These people include the President of the Toronto Public Library Workers Union and the Mayor of Toronto, John Tory.
On March 8th and June 6th, 2017, the Minister of Justice introduced bills to amend the Criminal Code. The purpose of Bills C-39 and C-51 is to repeal a number of criminal offences. Blasphemous libel is on the list, but seditious libel and defamatory libel are not.
Pornography has once again been thrust onto the public stage. This time, however, it’s been (re)framed as a “public health” issue (as opposed to a women’s equality issue or a source of criminal harm). I’ve been researching sexual speech for almost as long as I’ve been consuming it, which is to say a long time. It therefore comes as no surprise that we’re in the midst of yet another attempt to censor it and to surveille its consumers.