The name of this blog is Canadian Defence Matters, and it does matter. But what also matters is what we are defending. The principles and beliefs that a relatively few have stood on guard to defend, for the rest of us, must surely matter or their sacrifices will have in vain.
To paraphrase
Dickens, Donald Sterling is a
jerk; there is no doubt whatever about that. This must be distinctly understood
or nothing good can come of what is to follow.
The now well known
Mr. Sterling was taped by his mistress, in a private conversation, making
repugnant and ugly remarks. His punishments have been swift and the
condemnation universal.
Public shunning is
a powerful thing. It undoubtedly has more influence on personal behavior then
any legislation ever contemplated. It is the universality, and to a lesser
extent the sanctimony, of this reaction that should give us pause.
People more often
speak of “freedom of expression” nowadays then they use the phrase ‘free
speech”. It would appear that the reason for this is that they have become
separate things in the public mind. It seems that “freedom of expression”
denotes the right to say conventional things in unconventional ways. “Free
speech” is a far different and more powerful concept.
The trend away
from the traditional concept of free speech is particularly dangerous in the
modern age. In a world in which the news
cycle has been shortened to the speed of Twitter, institutions are under
pressure to react before they understand the situation. In the case of Tom Flanagan it was enough for
political opponents to misquote him to destroy his reputation in the space of a
day.
Having been
accused of societal taboo, in this case a form of child abuse, Flanagan was
immediately denounced by anyone made aware of the charge. For the record, Mr.
Flanagan does not condone child pornography in any form. Nor has he ever said
he does. It does not matter; because once the charge was made no one in a
position of power believed they could do anything but condemn him in the
harshest terms.
In part, this over
reaction was because the concept of “fair comment” or the ideal that everyone
is entitled to their own opinion is no longer widely accepted in our society.
Perhaps the most
disagreeable part of “free speech” is the notion that to be real it must be
extended to those we disagree with. When David Ahenakew was acquitted of the charge of willfully promoting hatred Saskatchewan
Provincial Court Judge Wilfred Tucker made the point that while Ahenakew’s statements
were "revolting, disgusting and untrue", they did not show intent to
incite hatred.
The judge,
correctly I believe, erred on the side of caution when refusing to uphold the
conviction of Mr. Ahenakew for ‘hate crimes’. It has been said that “your right
to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. In that same sense, many believe
that the right to free speech ends where harm can be seen to be done. This is a
slippery doctrine, easily abused, and dangerous to the whole concept of free
speech. Words have power, rights can be abused, but it is better to accept a
degree of discomfort then to give up hard won and important rights for the
illusion of security.
It is easy to
accord the ‘luxury’ of free speech to reasonable people. It is easy, for
example, to say that “while I disagree with his position, I defend his right to
have his opinion” when speaking about someone like Steven Staples . It is far harder to do when speaking about
someone like Sterling
Which brings us
back to the odious Mr. Sterling.
At least some of
the allure of denying the right of free speech to all is that it is makes life
easy. It’s easy to condemn and dismiss Chief Ahenakew, much more difficult then
to talk about how he, and his views, achieved a position of power and
influence. It is easier to just not think about it.
The instant anger
and unthinking public condemnation of Mr. Sterling were very convenient.
Convenient for the NAACP which didn't have to explain why they took his money,
convenient for the league officials who knew what he was but didn't feel the
need to do anything about it, convenient for the media who didn’t feel the need
to report on it, until it became public.
It is interesting
to consider that fifty years ago Mr. Sterling’s racist commentary would have
garnered little or no attention. Sadly, his beliefs were not uncommon at that
time. In fact about the only thing he could have said fifty years ago to
attract the same amount of public anger would have been to espouse the cause of
gay marriage.
This writer has no
idea what will compromise common wisdom in fifty years. The one thing we can be
sure of is that it will be very different then that of today. Someone,
somewhere, will say something perfectly scandalous that will turn out to be
true. When everybody is wrong, one person will be right. To hear that person,
to put their ideas to the test of public discussion, we have to be willing to
hear everybody.
Freedom of speech
will mean nothing if it is not extended to everyone. Too many brave men and
women have given their lives in defence of that principle for us to forsake it
now just to insure a more convenient life.
Clippers owner
Donald Sterling banned from NBA for life
How Tom Flanagan
went from respected political scientist to pariah
David Ahenakew
Steven Staples
