Via Wayback, reprinted here as the original website is now gone (George Jonas passed away in 2016) and I think it’s in the interest of free thinking people that it not be.
My misgivings about hate-speech legislation and Human Rights Commissions go back to 1977. In those days such laws seemed progressive. Only a few considered that compelling liberalism may be illiberal. In time, second thoughts and questions emerged. A National Post editorial published in January, 1999, viewed Canada’s hate-speech legislation as “potentially sinister” whose proposed new provisions “could be put to authoritarian and illiberal purposes.”
I wrote that hate-speech laws were sinister by definition and could only be put to illiberal purposes. Certainly John Stuart Mill thought so. He phrased his objection rather forcefully 150 years ago: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it… We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and even if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”
What is “hate-speech”? It’s speech the authorities hate. No doubt, it is often worth hating. It may be speech that every right-thinking person ought to hate, but it is also, by definition, speech that falls short of unlawful or tortuous speech — i.e., speech that’s fraudulent, defamatory, seditious, conspiratorial — for which a person could be either sued or charged criminally. Hate-speech legislation seeks to regulate speech that is not against any law — logically, since unlawful speech doesn’t need to be outlawed. Here’s the paradox. Hate-speech legislation can only ban free speech. Prohibited speech is already banned. People often say that freedoms aren’t absolutes and they’re right. Free expression is anything but “absolute” in free societies. It’s hemmed in by strictures against slander, official secrets, perjury, fraud, incitement to riot, and so on. The question is, should laws go beyond these strictures? And if they do, won’t they suppress opinion and creed in the end?
The answer is yes. There is nothing else for them to suppress. Repressive positions are difficult to defend for those who wish to keep their liberal credentials intact. They usually do so by quoting bits of pernicious nonsense from the kind of speech they would ban to illustrate how worthless and abhorrent it is. But pointing to the abhorrent nature of despised speech is insufficient because no speech is legislated against unless it’s abhorrent to some. Nobody outlaws Mary Poppins, not even the Human Rights Commissions (though this could be famous last words).
If suppressing opinion breaches axioms of liberalism, can it be justified by utility? Canadian defenders of hate-speech laws rarely offer any examples, other than the dubious benefit of distinguishing ourselves from Americans (one Human Rights-type called free speech an American concept in a recent court case) but one suggestion is that such laws would have stopped a Hitler. The problem is, the Weimar Republic had such laws. It used them freely against the Nazis. Far from stopping Hitler, they only made his day when he became Chancellor. They enabled Hitler to confront Social Democratic Party chairman Otto Wels, who stood up in the Reichstag to protest Nazi suspension of civil liberties, with a quotation from the poet Friedrich Schiller: “‘Late you come, but still you come,'” Hitler pointed at the hapless deputy. “You should have recognized the value of criticism during the years we were in opposition [when] our press was forbidden, our meetings were forbidden, and we were forbidden to speak for years on end.”
The Nazis would have been just as repressive without this excuse, but being able to offer it made Hitler’s task easier. Like Canadian supporters of hate-speech legislation, supporters of the Weimar Republic thought that their groups and causes would occupy all seats of authority and set all social and legal agendas forever. Shades of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association or the Canadian Jewish Congress! They couldn’t envisage the guns of their own laws being turned around to point at them one day. Eradicating hateful ideas through free discourse is liberal; trying to eradicate them through legislation is illiberal. “There is always a chance that he who sets himself up as his brother’s keeper,” wrote Eric Hoffer, “will end up by being his jail keeper.”
Another thing: “Banned in Boston” sells tickets. As Victor Hugo put it: “The writer doubles and trebles the power of his writing when a ruler imposes silence on the people.” I’d think twice before banning neo-Nazis for this reason alone.
© 2002 – 2015 George Jonas
Hate Speech legislation is double Plus Ungood. It is thought control, codified. Outlawing thought is as bad as it gets.
Truth! It’s the new Hate Speech.
“Hate speech” and “hate crimes” spring way too easily to the lips of Canadians. Substitute “wrongthink”. You can’t force people to like or respect each other; that has to be earned, on an individual basis.
That’s how losing all the pillars of society have lost the narrative: media, universities, foundations. The left now own the narrative. It may be difficult constitutionally to repeal the First or Second Amendment, but they have already done it without going through the process, with just a few ingenious phrases.
They are all for the freedom of speech, but are against hate speech. The problem is, hate speech is anything they define it to be. You say Muhammad married an eight year old girl, and consummated the marriage four years later? Why that’s Islamaphobic hate speech, let alone the girl herself wrote it in sacred Islamic documents equivalent to the Epistles. You say there are only two sexes, why that’s hate speech right there.
They are all for the second commandment, but are against assault weapons. The problem is, assault weapons is anything they define it to be. Pretty soon, they can define a revolver to be an assault weapon. Some of them even argue that any firearm made after 1789 is not covered by the second commandment.
They are all for equal treatment regardless of race, and they say that’s why they are against white privilege. And what is white privilege? Why, anything whites achieve proportionally more than blacks is due to white privilege, In fact, those things can be inherently racist in themselves, so blacks must always be given preferential treatment. What things? Why racist things like math, engineering, science, computer science, SAT, IQ tests. They haven’t got to it yet, but they will. Why are whites winning more in table games like poker, bridge, chess … and there is big money there, at the top. It’s because those games are also inherently racist.
How do you redress white privilege? The “moderate” solution is to give preferential treatment to blacks until blacks have equal achievement. The “woke” solution is to take the fruits of the achievement away from whites since they were only gotten unfairly.
So with just a few phrases like hate speech, assault weapon, white privilege, they have already managed to undo much of the great foundation for our society laid by the Founding Fathers. We will stand to lose all of it unless we fight back and defend the Constitution.
What’s with the big push for the movie The Eight Hundred? CCP jingoism is cool in China, but why is it being pushed so hard here?
“Take from me every right save one, freedom of speech. For with it, I can win back every right that was taken.”
Author Unknown
“We have free speech in our society, but people can’t say everything. “
That rather odious and Orwellian deep thought was brought to you courtesy of Canadian Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault, who in my opinion is currently this country’s most dangerous man.
He made the comment the other day when he was rattling Facebook’s cage, who in his mind aren’t doing enough to regulate “hateful” content. A shot across the bow if you will, basically telling internet platforms — if you don’t do it, this gov’t will be happy to do it for you.
Never underestimate a Liberal’s penchant for crushing those opinions they don’t like. Paying off the media was genius…the rest will be as easy as falling off a log.
The ones pushing it still believe they will always be in control. For example, the Lieberals call themselves the “Natural Governing Party”. As Jonas wisely points out, they just cannot envisage themselves being the target of their own laws.
The Canadian Jewish Congress is such an organisation that insists upon cutting its own throat with additional hate speech laws. They just cannot fathom radical Islamists using the laws to silence the CJC.
Hate speech laws are truly evil because they take away the only means of being rational, that being the act of judgement based on one’s moral code. If people aren’t allowed to be exposed to ideas some consider immoral or contemptible, the faculties of reason are disallowed and society eventually degenerates into non-rational, reflexive, human ballast.
I can’t think of a more Orwellian perversion of a name than liberal as employed in describing leftists or in Canada, their popular party which would be more accurately named the Illiberal Party of Canada.
Laws against “hate speech” are vile hate speech themselves.
Fuck, I hate being smarter than everyone I know and encounter. I wished, some time ago that as an old man I would stop feeling this way and that someone, anyone would be on my side. I actually wished that maybe my mind would start to fade and that like old Joe I could become President of the greatest nation on the planet. Oh well, didn’t happen and the terminally stupid , a la trudels, are still in control. Once again with feeling, CANADIANS ARE STUPID.
Canada is a nation of mid-wits. Not quite retarded, but they ain’t curing cancer either. They know just enough to be annoying.
But don’t you get a frisson of pleasure yelling out “Hey you kids, get off of my lawn!” I’m told that’s supposed to bring a wonderful feeling to curmudgeons like me.
Whenever I disagreed with something George Jonas wrote, my first thought would always be that I must have got it wrong somewhere. Thanks for resurrecting this one.
Left wingers want to control speech because wrong think is often very compelling and boldly honest.
In the past five years I’ve gone from a Reform Party supporting, Harper defending, social conservative into a red-pilled, right-wing, Pinochet-admiring extremist.
Thanks internet!
Jeff, Me too. I started with Reform as well. Only, you must realize that you/we are only considered red-pilled, right wing, Pinochet-admiring extremist to the Liberal Green NDP voting idiots out there in Canadaland.
Here on SDA, you are just a tad right of center.
Is anyone filled with more hate than an illiberal? Someone from BLM or Antifa? What did Hillary call half of Trump supporters?
They’re always telling others how awful they are. Jiz-bucket Juthin does it everyday while the MSM licks his arse.
They need hate speech laws because the truth often hurts.
Connie Fournier is a truly wonderful Canadian :
https://twitter.com/freedominion?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Nothing ever changes.
By outlawing words,violence is ensured.
Language cannot be banned,forbidden.
Language does nothing without its user.
Hate Speech is the mark of spineless cowards who cannot defend their own points of view,who cannot convince others of the merit of their ideas,cause there is no merit in their sterile political correctness.
And by using the brute force of the State to silence those who mock their wisdom,they ensure that more certain methods will follow.
We will have to “commence to slitting throats” before these kind of Liberal Style assault politicians ever back off of their lust for power.
For controlling speech is the mark of the Micro Man,so frightened of everything and every one that they can tolerate no questions.
Fools and Bandits..
All Hail the Great Kleptocracy of Can Ahh Duh.