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.
