I am a free speech absolutist. I am glad that Samidoun chanted, “Death to Canada,” and “Death to Israel,” on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery, because they unmasked themselves despite the keffiyehs hiding their faces.
I do not believe that Canada — or any country or jurisdiction — should have laws to criminalize speech — at all. So, it would be unprincipled and hypocritical were I to suggest that Canada’s growing population of antisemitic terrorist cheerleaders be told to shut up under threat of arrest and imprisonment.
More than that, it is in our best interest that we hear the thoughts and intentions of any terrorists, or their sycophants, within our borders. Let them speak. If they are instead forced to whisper their dreams and desires in private conversations — the only type of speech that falls outside of Canada’s laws against the public incitement of hatred — then we are effectively growing a field of tall grass for all of our snakes to hide within. I want to see where the snakes are, at all times.
We are fortunate that Vancouver-based Samidoun has repeatedly risked flouting our hate speech legislation. The ensuing public backlash may have, in part, provided impetus for the government of Canada to finally recognize the group — which is closely associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) — as a terrorist entity under our Criminal Code. It certainly shone a glaring spotlight on the group’s actions and intentions. Because Samidoun took this risk with their speech, it simply became impossible to continue ignoring them. Canada’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs has been asking for this to happen for years, to no avail. Now, Samidoun is subject to monitoring and criminal code prohibitions against their recruitment, finances, and travels.
Samidoun cut themselves off at the knees. Perhaps it would have happened sooner if Canada didn’t have any laws to regulate and prohibit certain types of speech. Perhaps Samidoun would have taken to the streets to praise Hamas and Hezbollah, and to wish death upon Canada and Israel’s democracies, prior to this latest conflict. Perhaps our laws were the wooden spoon across a pot of water, preventing Samidoun’s simmering rage from boiling over — and conveniently allowing Trudeau’s government to look the other way. Engaging in hate speech is not a requirement to be listed as a terrorist entity, but it sure seemed to have ushered in Canada’s about-face.
Among our country’s several laws that infringe on our Charter right to free expression are the Criminal Code provisions against “public incitement of hatred” and “willful promotion of hatred,” and provincial Human Rights Codes that prohibit “hateful” and “discriminatory” speech. The laws apply to “identifiable” or “protected” groups, such as religious or ethnic groups. Canadians can land up to two years in prison for these Criminal Code offences, or more if found guilty of an aggravating circumstance, which is when “an act that is otherwise criminal is shown to have been motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor…”
We also have our “Anti-Terrorism Act” of 2015, which made it a criminal offence to advocate for or promote terrorist offences and defined “terrorist propaganda.” It handed judges the power to order that content deemed terrorist propaganda be deleted from the internet. When this bill passed, numerous critics made the argument that it was unnecessary, too broad, and would drive terrorists underground. I agree.
My agreement with critics on these points, believe it or not, could itself be considered an offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act — because simply challenging the law that says one cannot advocate for or promote terrorist offences could, itself, be considered a form of advocating for or promoting terrorist offences. It’s merely one step removed.
Put another way: let’s pretend that I told my sons that I was making it illegal — with the threat of withholding their allowance — if they promoted or advocated that I buy them ice cream. If my youngest responded with sadness, “Fine,” but my oldest said, “That wasn’t fair,” and argued that they should be allowed to pester me for the sweet treat, I could argue that he was promoting and advocating that I buy ice-cream, even though he was only arguing against the rule, and not specifically trying to get ice cream in that instance.
Lawyer Julian Walker, with Canada’s Library of Parliament, suggested that the Anti-Terrorism Act creates an exception that “could protect the free speech of those who may wish to challenge the law or any aspect of it.” However, he also notes that such protection is merely “possible,” and that the “wording of this exception leaves open some debate about its meaning.” As it hasn’t been legally tested, we still don’t know if it’s illegal to promote free speech absolutism in the context of terrorism.
This is exactly why laws that criminalize speech should not exist in the first place.
Generally, my arguments for free speech absolutism centre on the issue of the unacceptable nature of assigning any government censor as the arbiter of what ideas and words constitute “hate” or “discrimination.”
That is a slippery slope that Canada is already sliding on, with the looming threat of an Online Harms Act being passed into law, and with provincial Human Rights Tribunals — loaded with ideological extremists of the far-left — deciding they have jurisdiction over our online speech. Laws governing our speech can always be weaponized against us. They are not worth the cost. We should instead accept that it is in our best interest to have absolute free speech — even if that means others may say terrible and hateful things.
The tidal wave of antisemitism in Canada has suffered since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack is disgusting. Samidoun’s speeches and chants have been disgusting and hateful.
But I want to hear them.
National Post