It is the on air exchange with Canadian Human Rights Commission chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch on freedom of expression (speech) which most resonates during these days when the question of what is and what isn't acceptable speech is the subject of hot debate.
I quizzed the Chief Commissioner on the fact one of her senior investigators, during an actual Human Rights Tribunal hearing, had been quizzed on what value he placed on freedom of speech. Paraphrasing, his reply was he placed no value on freedom of speech because freedom of speech is an American concept. When I suggested to Ms. Lynch her investigator ought familiarize himself with the Canadian Constitution in which freedom of speech is enshrined, she countered the investigator was under stress at the time of the hearing and that the Canadian Constitution's reference is to "freedom of expression". I will concede the Chief Commissioner that point. In Canada the technical term is "freedom of expression", but Canadians when speaking to the issue will invariably consider "freedom of expression" and "freedom of speech" interchangeable. Besides, the CHRC investigator's view addressed the "concept", not the literal definition.
Freedom of expression and speech have been some will argue under assault and if assault is too harsh, then under review might serve.
Ann Coulter was warned about Canadian hate speech laws in an infamous email from the provost of the University of Ottawa and ultimately in a rowdy manner refused the opportunity to say even as much as "good evening". while Mark Steyn's appearance at the London Convention Centre was denied by panicky LCC management. What might Mr. Steyn say to annoy and/or irritate? Better not to find out than allow a man who is internationally published and who has spoken before the U.S. Congress to step up to the microphone.
In the past few weeks the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council declared the original Money For Nothing by Dire Straits be banned from public airwaves because this 25 year classic rock hit song made the now infamous f-word reference to homosexuality. Public opposition, which included member of parliament Scott Brison, a partner in a same sex marriage, disagreeing with the CBSC became so energized the CRTC requested the CBSC revisit its decision. Something Broadcast Standards Council Chair Ron Cohen committed to on air this past weekend.
News media I believe usually do a credible job policing acceptable speech. I know what I can and cannot (or should and should not) say when the microphone is hot. I engage in common sense speak, but not censorship (there is a difference). The same appears not to be the case as far as CNN is concerned where host John King raced through an on air apology after a regular contributor, discussing the Chicago Mayoralty campaign, used the term "in the cross hairs." Consider that. A panicked reaction to a figure of speech and on a network which for years featured a program titled "Crossfire". Was it spontaneous on John King's part, or was there a panicked ear prompt?
On the weekend I featured Eric Brazau of Toronto. Not because Mr. Brazau had displayed a sign reading on one side "Military die, Firefighters die, People die", and on the other "no police state" at the funeral of Toronto police Sergeant Ryan Russell, but because his action became a news story and because as much as I found Brazau's sign appalling in that environment, I considered it necessary to defend his right to act as he did. Eric Brazau made no attempt to incite and under the circumstance, it would be difficult to argue his action isn't protected by the Constitution of Canada and meets the definition of accepted freedom of expression. The limitation on FOE, by the way, was established by this nation's Supreme Court when the SCC ruled hate speech may not benefit from Constitutional protection.
While it is Jennifer Lynch's exchange with me which resonates most strongly, it is CNN's John King's 'ohmygosh...ohmygoodness....if we fail to meet your standards please let us know' chirping which is most worrisome. Just who was Mr. King addressing with the 'if we fail to meet your standards please let us know' verbal self-flagellation? If CNN is indeed committed to this approach it will cripple the creativity and spontaneity of its writers and on air personalities.
I know, John King and CNN would argue I should have written "handicap" and usually I would have, if I weren't making a point.
CNN has been doing a lot of things lately that many would consider suspicious in nature. I'm speaking of their treatment and shuffling around of their staff. Some of it is happening under clouds of controversy and secrecy. One great example is the way that their Morning Show anchor, John "J.D." Roberts (formerly of MuchMusic fame here in Canada back in the 1980's) made his move to the Fox News group. Nobody will explain why Roberts made the move, or whether he was forced to make the move. There was speculation about his contract both on-air and in the media, but nothing specific. Right up until the day Roberts left, CNN made no on-air indications that Roberts was leaving. Instead, they kept advertising his show as if nothing had changed. I'm not a big fan of CNN, but things like this certainly make it harder for me to trust the things I hear from them.
Posted by: Todd | 01/26/2011 at 12:32 AM
Freedom of Expression
Man faces indictment for drawing rat on G20 poster
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/01/117_79979.html
Posted by: abcdef1234 | 01/26/2011 at 10:51 AM
"Besides, the CHRC investigator's view addressed the "concept", not the literal definition."
That's not correct. If you read the transcript where that comment came from, the investigator at several points talks about the American term "freedom of speech" versus the Canadian term "freedom of expression". It may be a little semantic, but the law in the two countries is different, and that's the point that was being made.
It's sad how many people will just repeat anything that Ezra Levant has to say on this topic without actually looking at the issue.
Posted by: Kevin | 01/27/2011 at 10:04 AM
Before you feature someone maybe you should ensure you are not giving a criminal a forum for hate-mongering.
The controversial protester who wore a “No Police State” sign at the funeral procession for Sgt. Ryan Russell was jailed Thursday after he was convicted of assault earlier this week.
Eric Brazau, 46, was found guilty of assault with a weapon — his seventh violent offence conviction — for hitting Alan Norris with his car outside Brazau’s downtown Toronto home in July 2009.
Justice Alphonse Lacavera sentenced Brazau to 45 days in custody for assault with a weapon and breaching his probation.
Brazau became a public figure when he held up a sign that stated “Soldier’s Die, Electricians Die and People Die” on one side and “No Police State” on the other at the enormous funeral for Russell on Jan. 18.
Brazau’s latest brush with the law occurred when Norris and his friend, Sharon Reeve arrived at Brazau’s home to serve him legal papers.
Reeve’s mother was involved in a civil dispute with Brazau in the summer of 2009.
Brazau tried to escape in his car without accepting the documents.
His car struck Norris as he stood on the sidewalk.
Norris, who suffered a knee injury, toppled onto the hood of Brazau’s Volkswagen.
Brazau, a self-employed consultant, who breached his probation on an earlier assault charge, was also placed on two years probation.
He received credit for seven days of pretrial custody.
The sentence was jointly proposed by Crown attorney Monica Gharabaway and defence counsel Michael Hassell.
Brazau, who stated his free speech rights were handcuffed when he was arrested at the huge police funeral procession, also faces allegations Monday at College Park courts that he criminally harassed a hijab-wearing Muslim woman last summer.
Police allege Brazau was riding his bike near a Muslim woman walking in the Parliament and Carleton Sts. area when he called her a terrorist and said he was against Muslims.
It is alleged Brazau continued the anti-Muslim rant on two other occasions and urged her to “go back to Afganistan.” The woman reported the incidents to police and Brazau was charged July 24.
Brazau told the Sun’s Joe Warmington that he wore the offensive sign outside the massive police funeral at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre to express his free speech and didn’t mean to offend the Russell family.
He was taken away in handcuffs but later released without charges.
“I wanted to test if it is a police state,” Brazau said. “And what happened to me for holding that sign is the kind of thing that would happen in one.
“Would I, Joe, have been arrested if I had been holding a sign that said ‘Rest in Peace, Hero’?” If you say no, then you have to say what is the difference?”
Posted by: Juliane | 01/28/2011 at 08:31 PM
Hello Roy, please remind your senior snowbird travellers that each time they cross the border to get gas or shop it is considered a full day in the US. My husband and I are retired teachers and feel embarrassed that we were not counting our days when wintering in the US and crossing the border for a game of golf. After we were pulled into the border guard's office and interrogated we asked if they could please tell us how many days we had been in the States so we could be more conscientious about this in the future. His reply was "No, I'm not going to tell you that. You have to monitor yourselves". He did let us cross but said we were now on their computer alert. We have no idea now if we'll be allowed to cross the border in future. We feel like criminals.
Posted by: Sharon Clarke | 05/22/2011 at 03:06 PM