If I was so inclined, this column could abuse the government. It could articulate the most distasteful opinions around; it could even call for a collective uprising against the authorities-and no one could do anything about it. I can say pretty much whatever I want, because that is part of what being a Canadian is about. Freedom of expression is, for better or worse, a fundamental part of Western democracy and civilization. We hold our right to free speech as dear as we hold our right to due process-and any perceived challenge to said rights arouses fierce opposition and fury. For proof of this one need look no farther than McMaster University, the site of a recent free speech rally following the university's controversial decision to prohibit the display of a banner containing the words "Israel Apartheid."
The event does raise some crucial questions about free speech on university campuses. A university should ideally be an inclusive environment that fosters open discourse and fruitful academic debate based on mutual respect. The expression of certain sentiments and opinions may detract from-rather than add to-this mission. Ironically, however, when universities choose to prohibit free expression in order to stop protest, they usually end up causing it.
But if the McMaster officials thought that the banner itself would be inflammatory, they were chastened by the reaction against them. The free speech rally quickly degenerated into the worst-case scenario of Jews-versus-Arabs, with both sides flinging hateful language and accusations at the other. Far from preventing conflict, the decision worked to increase the tension-not only were the participants angry at each other, they were also furious at McMaster officials.
There is a lesson to be learned here: preventing the expression of an attitude that ome consider hateful does not do anything to get rid of it. When authorities prohibit expression, the point of view begins to fester-it perpetuates itself and becomes even more ingrained in the minds of those who share it. It is only through open discussion that the validity of any point of view can be ascertained. An opinion must be expressed in order to be accepted, but by the same token, it must certainly be expressed if it is to be dismissed. The presentation of conflicting opinions along with a discussion of both sides' merits and flaws is the only way to handle controversial issues responsibly.
2008 Woodie Awards
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Harry Abrams
posted 3/18/08 @ 5:28 PM EST
It's disingenuous to suggest that curtailing inflammatory hate speech only produces more.
Holocausts and ethnic violence don't begin with sticks and stones,they begin with words. (Continued…)
Post a Comment