Defending the freedom of freedom's enemies
by George Jonas
CanWest Publications
May 14, 2008
Tom says if Dick publishes Harry's book because he likes it, then if Tom doesn't like Harry's book, Dick must publish Tom's book whether he likes it or not.
If you agree, apply for a job with a Human Rights Commission (HRC). They're looking for people like you. If you disagree, you might want to let Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan , and Muneeza Sheikh know.
Mithoowani, Awan , and Sheikh are law students complaining to various HRCs about Maclean's magazine having printed an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. As Muslims, they feel the piece exposes them to ridicule and contempt. They say they'd drop their complaint if the magazine would feature a rebuttal to Steyn's piece at equal length and prominence.
When they first tried this on for size, Maclean's Kenneth Whyte, after double-checking that a.) he was still the editor, b.) the trio wasn't trying to buy advertising or make an offer for the magazine, and c.) Canada hasn't stopped paying lip service to being a free country, told his aspiring contributors where to take their pitch.
The rejected freelancers retained various HRCs to act as their literary agents. This upset the media, pleasing me no end but also making me wonder. Why didn't the media get upset before? The HRCs have been running with similar balls for 30 years.
Let me approach the topic -- freedom of expression -- in a roundabout way.
Stephen Vizinczey tells the story of a pretty chanteuse in Montreal back in the swinging 60s who had a sexually adventurous phase in her life. When a particularly unappetizing fellow among the local flower children bragged about having had a one-night stand with her, some people refused to believe it.
"Tell me it isn't true," said a mutual acquaintance.
"It's true," was her reply.
"But how could you?"
"It was just an experiment," she said, "to see if I could go to bed with nausea."
A similar story comes from my native town. Many years before TV ads offered remedies for erectile dysfunction, a no-longer-young physician was hauled before the local hospital board for seducing an elderly cleaning lady, regarded as a breach of work discipline in those days. He admitted to his indiscretion and was fined a hefty sum.
"Why did you, for heaven's sake?' someone asked him. "The lady in question is hardly irresistible."
The doctor shrugged. "Anybody can go to bed with Gina Lollobrigida," he replied. "I wanted to test my virility."
All right. Going to bat for Mark Steyn's freedom of expression is like going to bed with Gina Lollobrigida. Anybody can do it. The challenge to liberty's libido is going to bat for a James Keegstra's freedom of expression, or an Ernst Zundel's. Defending the Charter rights of crude racists and Holocaust deniers is a test of liberal virility. It's a test we failed. We failed the political equivalent of the Montreal chanteuse's sexual challenge: Going to bed with nausea.
Getting a bit queasy? I am, so let's switch analogies. Liberty's game wardens, a.k.a., the media, seem astounded that the "human rights" poachers are no longer after vermin but have the park's poster Mother Bear and her adorable cubs in their sights. Iconic Bambi herself is in the Kafkaesque commissariat's crosshairs. I say Bambi is at risk today because we couldn't bring ourselves to defend vermin. We didn't even defend stragglers like the late West Coast journalist, Doug Collins. When statism's trespassing marauders declared an open season on Canada's traditional liberties 30-plus years ago, we abdicated.
Defending the freedom of freedom's friends is dandy, but it's no substitute for defending freedom. One isn't defending freedom until one defends the freedom of freedom's enemies. Waxing eloquent about speech one admires is admirable, but it doesn't defend freedom of speech. Defending freedom of speech means defending the freedom of speech one abhors. One isn't obliged to promote abominated speech, but anyone who aspires to be called liberal is obliged to resist its suppression. The famous line attributed to Voltaire wasn't: "I will defend to the death your right to say any damn thing that doesn't rub me the wrong way." It was: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
How would Canada's Human Rights Commissioners formulate Voltaire's sentiment? Try: "We will defend our right to disapprove of what you say to the death." Whose death? Excellent question. The HRCs, I hope. If not, it'll be liberty's.