Cheap isn’t good enough, speech has to be free
By David Dyck
Photos by Mark Burnham
Last week’s issue of The Peak featured “Hate Talk: How much freedom of speech do we deserve?” The article warned that too much freedom of speech can be a bad thing.
The author, Mohamed Sheriffdeen, compared two different cases in recent Canadian memory. The first was that of Bill Whatcott, noted anti-gay minister from Saskatchewan. He was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada and tried for the crime of hate speech.
The second case was the more recent incident involving Tom Flanagan. The former political strategist and political science professor at the University of Calgary made some comments about child pornography that received a predictably negative reaction.
The point made by Sheriffdeen is that while Whatcott’s free speech rights were removed, many in the media jumped to his aid. Meanwhile Flanagan was nearly universally crucified for his remarks. To him, this is a discrepancy, when in fact it is the principle of free speech being debated here, not the actual issues under contention.
Sheriffdeen misses this important distinction. Regardless of what you think of either of the issues under prosecution, the former was carried out by the state, where the latter was executed in the court of public opinion.
Flanagan made the remarks that he made, but he will not answer to the Supreme Court of Canada for them, whereas Whatcott already has. Certainly there were consequences for Flanagan’s actions. He publicly apologized, the CBC cut off ties with him, and he tendered his resignation from the University of Calgary.
The reason why the Whatcott case is offensive to so many people is that it is an instance of the state regulating and prosecuting speech rights. Historically, this kind of action has not ended well, and contradicts the logic behind our societal understanding of free speech.
It is the court of public opinion that ought to try cases such as these, and in Flanagan’s case, it has done an exceptional job. Where it fails, the government is not responsible, nor should it be made responsible for picking up the slack.
Perhaps Canada has decided that speech is not free, after all. What we have to ask ourselves next is a daunting question: what price are we willing to pay for it?
