I’m gonna say it

Free speech: to be or not to be?

Ayame Ulrich

What should free speech in a democratic country look like?

The answer to this question seems to be as slippery and elusive now as ever. Some argue that free speech - by virtue of it being truly “free” - needs to have zero restrictions.

Others insist that under some circumstances, legally enforced limitations should be placed on said freedom.

Many of us - probably most of us - are at least a little bit torn.

Now, because of a Saskatchewan man’s controversial actions, the Supreme Court of Canada is preparing to weigh in on the issue. The outcome could potentially alter our legal definition of what constitutes hate speech.

Back in 2001 and 2002, Bill Whatcott raised eyebrows when he began publicly handing out pamphlets explicitly condemning the morality of homosexuals in Regina and Saskatoon.

Not surprisingly, Whatcott’s actions soon resulted in a backlash from some individuals who had witnessed his campaign.

The matter was brought to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC), which, as a section of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRH), describes itself as “an independent body established by Parliament ... (that) carries out its mandate at arms-length from the Government of Canada.”

In 2005, the SHRC ordered Whatcott to pay $17,500 to the four individuals who had filed complaints for reason of “injury to dignity.”

Last year, a Saskatchewan appeals court overturned the order, and since then the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Whatcott remains decidedly unapologetic for his actions, having handed out thousands of additional anti-gay pamphlets in Ottawa this past October.

“Putting out an opinion is not hate,” he asserts.

The ruling on Whatcott’s case will be crucial in legally defining future limitations to free speech.

On the one hand, increased censorship can be seen as a threat to free speech and true democracy.

It’s not uncommon to hear the argument that “freedom of speech comes with responsibility,” yet many promoters of absolute freedom of speech suggest that “responsibility” should not be demanded by law.

On the other hand, Whatcott’s campaign is obviously targeting a specific group, exhibiting - it’s safe to say - extreme bigotry and unreasonable prejudice.

As with all constitutional decisions a choice must ultimately be made between restriction of some form of liberty for equality’s sake, and unrestrained liberty, equality be damned.

So what to choose?

Let’s face it: hate exists. We as a society would have to be willing to pretty severely restrict liberty in order to illegalize all overtly hateful behaviour.

We cannot and should not attempt to legally punish Whatcott for his opinions, despite their obvious hateful nature.

In personal response to Whatcott’s above quoted statement, however, I must disagree: putting out an opinion can be hateful.

Let’s remember that Whatcott’s campaign is not against gay marriage, or any specific legal policies, but simply being a homosexual.

Aside from some stubborn heterosexuals who, in all their hetero-wisdom, insist that sexual orientation is a conscious choice, most people agree that we are born with our sexual orientations predetermined.

Therefore, Whatcott is morally condemning a group by virtue of being who they naturally are. Is this any different from distributing fliers that morally decry a specific racial or ethnic group?

Organizations that openly hate or criticize specific demographics certainly legally exist in Canada, yet their opinions are generally confined to private locations. However, when such opinions are actively spread and brought directly to the public, an important line is definitely being crossed.

It’s hard to prove whether or not Whatcott’s campaign is an example of “inciting hatred against an identifiable group” (Canada’s definition of hate speech), but we will soon hear what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter.

Let’s all hope that whatever the outcome, we strike the right balance between opposing hatred and maintaining liberty.

Carson Hammond is a second-year English student.

Published in Volume 66, Number 11 of The Uniter (November 9, 2011)

Related Reads