Who Says What Is Or Is Not Free Speech ?

In the last couple of days there have been two unrelated but similar news reports about public figures being harshly criticized for their comments made on public platforms. The first was Margaret Atwood who wrote an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail. Atwood had in 2016 signed a petition asking for a clear and public process regarding the dismissal of Steven Galloway, who had been a professor at the University of British Columbia. Galloway had lost his position due to allegations of  sexual misconduct. Atwood has since been vilified by some individuals as a "bad feminist for signing the petition.

The second bit of news was about Rick Mehta, a Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, who tweeted an opinion as to whether or not the Conservative leadership in Ottawa was denying free speech to former Conservative Senator Lynn Beyek. There has been a petition circulating demanding that he be removed from his teaching responsibilities as he is supporting a racist (Senator Beyek).

While there is no doubt that Atwood is by far, better known by the Canadian public than is Professor Mehta, the public reaction to their comments are similar and disturbing. Atwood is not suggesting that Galloway is innocent, she is not saying he is a wonderful fellow - she is just suggesting that a publically funded institution such as the University of British Columbia needs to have a process that is transparent. That if the professor is guilty of the charges - then the public have the right to be told what the facts are. Galloway may be entirely guilty - given the frequency of abuse reports by students from other institutions, it seems to be highly likely, but if so - what are the facts? If he is guilty enough to be fired - why is he not being charged under the criminal code?

Similarly, Professor Mehta in his forty-two word tweet - was at least in part criticizing the Conservatives lack of consistency about free speech as well as suggesting that there needs to be a clear and honest dialogue about the issues facing Canadians. Again Mehta may be an out and out flaming racist - his opinions as to Canadian Indigenous people may be totally wrong, but to suggest that he lose his position without any sort of dialogue or process is wrong.

It is easy to understand why individuals who belong to groups (e.g. women, First Nations etc) and who have historically been devalued, abused and dismissed by those in power, would need to be diligent in protecting the rights that they have clawed back in the last few decades. I recognize that both the abuse that they have experienced and the amount of energy used to reclaim their rightful place has been all consuming. I also accept that the process has just started and that there is much that we still need to do. No one can afford to sit back on our collective laurels and just assume that everything will now be all right.

But in our desire to be supportive, in our need to get on the collective bandwagon of political correctness, we run the risk of ignoring the very processes that allowed the disenfranchised and the abused to be heard. If we start to decide who can or cannot speak up based solely on their opinions; if we chose to limit an individual's right to express themselves in reasonable ways; if we close off avenues of debate because they are uncomfortable - then we limit the ability of those who we have yet to recognize as being oppressed to speak out.

There is no suggestion that people who say (and believe) hateful things about our fellow citizens who are part of the LGBT community or belong to visible minorities, ethnic groups, religions or any anything else, should have a public platform to continue their childish and to be pitied rants about some other time and place. There is no place in our society for those who intentionally say things that are hurtful and just plain wrong. But surely there needs to be a place for well reasoned arguments to be exposed and debated. Surely our society is strong enough to allow discussion of contentious points without resorting to name calling and public shaming.

Those in positions of power have much to apologize for. They have consciously maintained a status quo that has limited and been harmful to millions of Canadians. But if we are to hold them accountable for their backroom deals and old boy networks - surely we must do so in the full light of public scrutiny. If we have learnt anything at all, it must be that deals made behind closed doors, to benefit those who are screaming the loudest are seldom if ever benefit the majority of Canadians.