Of all the rights that we as Americans have been guaranteed by the Constitution, (or by our creator and recognised by the constitution, depending on your interpretation of the documents wording) the two most basic, most fundamental, are the first and second amendment's. Without the ability to speak ones mind, one can not be free. Without the ability to defend that right, it can not be maintained. The problem is, while most civilised nations pay lip service to free speech, many, if not most, seem to believe that only "approved" speech is protected. We have seen this in Britain, where a news channel was investigated by the police for "insulting Islam:, we have seen it in France, Germany and the rest of Europe where denying the holocaust is a crime punishable by incarceration. And now, we are seeing it in Canada.
Mark Steyn is a prominent conservative writer who recently penned a tome called "America Alone" which is about the challenges America faces in confronting Islamo-fascism, given the unwillingness by most of the west to either confront Islamo-fascism or even stick up for their own ideals in the face of Islamic opposition, or outrage. (think of the dutch cartoon contrivers) One of the themes Mark touches upon in his book, is that many of the people who attempt to discuss or highlight the problems within Islamic society are intimidated into silence, either through threats of violence from radical Islamics, or through threats of litigation from more "moderate" ones.
Its a bit ironic then that as a result of this book, or more specifically, excerpts of his book printed in McLeans, a Canadian weekly magazine, Mark Steyn is now facing a complaint brought against him by the Canadian Islamic Conference in the both the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as in the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, that his book constitutes "hate speech" against Muslims.
As those of you who have read this blog for awhile know, I am a big believer in free speech. I also believe that Freedom of Speech, and Freedom from offense, are mutually exclusive, and one the first is worth protecting. I haven't read Steyn's book yet, although it is on its way to my humble keep via amazon.com, so I cant honestly say whether this book is islamo-phobic or not, but my question to you violent reader is this; should it matter?
Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that America Alone is in fact islamophobic. Lets assume its nothing more than a racist, religonist, occidentalist, screed claiming that all Muslims are secretly worshipping the christian devil and sacrificing dhimmi babies in profane rituals. Even if that were the case, is that a valid reason for tthe Canadian Human rights commission to support the CIC charges by investigating either Mr.Steyn or McLean's? That is to say, should it be illegal to engage in offensive and possibly hateful speech? Keep in mind I am not defending attempts to instigate violence against anybody, merely highly offensive and possible hate motivated speech.
One of the few things that made somewhat proud of the Comics Blogosphere was the overwhelming support retailer Gordon Lee has received since he was charged. In many ways, this support, and the way comics fans and professionals rallied to his cause is a perfect example of why The USA has the most free speech in the world. The reason is that whenever we see our freedom of speech being threatened, whether it actually is or not, we fight to defend it. Well, usually.
The problem is many seem far more willing to support free speech in the name of some things than others. I'm sure some of the same people who have vociferously defended MR. Lee, would probably support the HRC decision to investigate this complaint, as it seems for some its easier to support fights against "morality" laws, than it is to support political speech you may or may not agree with. I suspect this partially because defending someone against morality laws is seen as "cool" "enlightened" and "rebellious" while defending a conservative writer would bee seen by the same as defending a bigot. And yet, doesn't our tradition require us to defend even those we believe are bigots? If we only defend free speech when the cause is "cool" do we truly believe in the principle?
We are all familiar with the quote
"I may not agree with what you say, But I will fight to death to defend your
right to say it"
But how many of us are actually wiling to live it? More to the point, are we truly willing to defend this tradition in the face of assaults from both sides? Its not enough to defend against assaults on free speech from the right if you are on the left, or vice versa. We must, in order to maintain the heritage which made this the most successful nation in history, be willing to defend against speech we do not like, do not agree with, are offended by, and disgusted by. If I am not willing to defend your right to call America a racist, sexist, evil nation, then I am myself betraying the principles by which I live. If you are not willing to defend my right to claim that Islam is nothing more than a barbaric death cult hell bent on world domination then you are betraying the principles we live by.
The problem is, some defenses of speech, seem to cost too much. Its easy to defend speech when all your Friends are doing so, but will you defend it when your friends are howling for the writers head as well? Are you willing to be ostracised, demonised, reviled, and hated in order to defend comments you find repugnant? Most of us it would seem, are not. Especially if that speech is something that goes against everything we believe. Its easy to defend a friend from calls of censorship from your enemy, but are you committed enough to also defend your enemy from calls of censorship from your friend? If you are a gay man are you willing to be ostracised by other gays, because you defended Eminem's right to use fag as a slur? If you are Black are you willing to defend a Grand Kleagle's right to use the word nigger? If you are a christian are you willing to defend a Muslim's right to call Jesus a false prophet? If you are a Buddhist are you willing to defend a Hindu's right to call Buddha a fat pig? These are not idle questions, but questions that are central to our chances of survival as a society.
Sadly, it would seem that for many of us, the answer is no, or at least not all the time. Many of us support "hate speech" laws in order to protect some, at the expense of us all. Others believe that offensive speech should not be covered, as everyone should try to get along and "play nicely"
Well, as I'm sure you have realised by now, I do NOT, play nicely. I actively set out to offend, to annoy, to irritate. I set out to insult and to antagonise. Some find it entertaining, some find it offensive, some don't even care enough to find it, but ask yourself this; if the day comes that I am no longer able to inflame, annoy, or offend, how much longer till you can no longer speak?
First they came for the assholes, and I was not an asshole, so I did
nothing.
Then they came for the neo-cons, and I was not a neo-con, so I did nothing.
When they finally came for me, there was no one left to do anything.
Do not allow them to defile the concept of human rights any mroe than they already have. Supprt Mr Steyn as you would Support Gordon Lee. Because free speech includes offensive speech, even if it offends you.
No comments:
Post a Comment