Canada, wingnuts and free speech

“Watch out, Canada, I’m a-comin’!”

I’m likely to be the last person who would ever side with someone like Ann Coulter in any way. She’s a complete crank who has openly admitted to only saying the crazy shit she supposedly believes in to get reactions from people, which effectively voids any and all integrity and credibility she may ever have had. But I had mixed feelings as I read this report about Coulter planning a visit to Canada and the reaction incurred [original emphasis]:

Far-right pundit Ann Coulter will be in Canada this week for “a trio of speaking engagements,” including one at the University of Ottawa. In advance of her visit, a senior official at the school sent Coulter a letter warning her to use “restraint, respect and consideration” in her remarks and telling her to review the country’s hate speech and defamation laws. From the letter:

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

In the past, Coulter has bashed Canada, saying, “They’d better hope the United States doesn’t roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.” In response to the letter, Coulter writes, “I was hoping for a fruit basket, not a threat to prosecute.”

First, what she received was a stern warning, not a threat. She should learn the difference. However, the issue that’s brought to light, here, is concerning free speech laws in Canada – and specifically, the limitations in the form of hate speech laws that are imposed onto that protection. I am a strong believer in freedom of speech that applies to everyone, and that includes demagogic idiots like Coulter, however vile or offensive they may be. Anyone should be allowed to spew any and all matters of hateful, dishonest and “offensive” as they see fit without doing so under the threat of being silenced^[1]. The only reasonable limits to free speech are when said speech is either slanderous in nature, or serves to incite violence or generalized panic, hate or other mass disorder. Screaming “fire” in a theater should be illegal, as should creating a rally with the message of burning down churches. But any speech that can’t reasonably be considered “dangerous” or slanderous should be permitted, under any and all circumstances, period.

I am in strong disagreement with the current limitations that affect how Canada’s free speech laws operate and how they protect people’s freedom of speech and expression, and I would strongly argue that these limits ought to be removed. While I doubt that even Coulter would be enough of a jackass to actually go around preaching hatred towards gays or Blacks or whatever to her audience – especially in Canada, which, for those who don’t know, makes even liberal parts of the US look like mild cousins of the Bible Belt – outside of her standard anti-liberal tripe, I would still like to see her be allowed to shout her idiocy from the rooftops without being silenced, and I would be rather disappointed should I hear about her being slapped with charges of hate speech.

(via @todayspolitics)

^[1] Before anyone asks: the reason why I ban hate speech on this blog (under “excessive vileness” in the blog’s commenting rules) despite being against anti-hate speech laws for the common public is because, quite simply, whilst this blog is my personal little playground where I can choose to block certain forms of unpleasantness (such as bigotry), I don’t believe that my personal views on what’s acceptable speech or not should extend to the rest of the world. (And besides, it’s easier to poke fun at irrational hatred if the bigots who spew it can do so freely.)