“Mr. Speaker; Honourable Senators,
“I rise to join my colleague, Senator Finley, in support of an inquiry into the state of freedom of speech in Canada. “I share Senator Finley’s love of freedom and his concern about the growing phenomena of censorship. “I approach the subject from the perspective of someone who, as a journalist for more than forty years, has used freedom of speech every day of my life, and has seen its essential role in keeping our democracy healthy. “And that’s my first observation: freedom of speech is much bigger than just politics.
“It’s about our right as free men and women to express ourselves in any way we choose – not just politically, but socially, musically, artistically and through every other human endeavour.
“Our freedom of expression is inextricably linked to our right to think for ourselves, to choose our place in the world, to talk back to the world, and even to fight against the world. “If you doubt that, ask any high school rock band why they do what they do! “So while it’s often political speech that grabs the news headlines – we should never forget that millions of Canadians put freedom of speech into action every day, from film-makers to authors, to stand-up comedians, to advertising agencies to PTA meetings and Rotary Clubs. “Free speech is a thread of personal liberty that is woven into every part of Canadian society.
“As a journalist, I exercised my freedom of speech every day. “And I was proud to offer a platform to many whose ideas were sometimes controversial. Senator Cools for example was often a guest on my program, as she fought for the rights of fathers. “And there are many other examples, involving both Senators and members of the “other place.” “Free speech oils the gears of democracy, to keep them running smoothly, especially in times of great controversy. “Freedom of speech doesn’t just help the system work; it invites people into the system; it gives them a seat at the table of national discussions. “It turns dissidents into participants; it invites people to opt in, not to drop out. “We sometimes take that for granted, but we shouldn’t. “Because in countries where there is no freedom of speech, people who feel marginalized can’t voice their grievances peacefully. “They don’t have the safety valve of public debate in which to vent their passions. “It is no coincidence that many of the countries with the least freedom of speech are countries with the most political violence.
“Some people say that if we ban offensive or rude opinions in Canada, society will be more harmonious.
“But experience around the world shows that’s just not how it works; and if we stop people from expressing themselves verbally, even in ways we find distasteful, they might be tempted to express themselves violently.
“Free speech is our national safety valve! “I’m impressed by how many grassroots Canadians have joined the ranks of democratic, participatory journalism through blogs and YouTube and social media like Facebook and Twitter.
“Journalism was once seen as a private club. There were enormous barriers to entry. “Ordinary people couldn’t join in the national discussion. They were reduced to the role of spectators, with little chance to participate beyond shaking their fists at the TV set, or writing an occasional letter to the editor. “But now, anyone with a laptop – or a camera, – can help make the news and have their say, and through the power of their ideas, reach millions of people, and sometimes even change the world. “It’s not just healthy for journalism, it’s healthy for democracy too. And it’s young people at the vanguard.
“That’s free speech.
“Just ask the hard-liners of Iran, who are losing the battle of ideas against university students armed only with the power of Twitter. “Or consider Communist China. “During the events in Tienamin Square, our distinguished colleague Senator Munson provided Canadians with a window on that historic event. “Today, thanks to technology, instead of just a few valiant journalists, the main voice for reform in China is that country’s 20 million bloggers, blowing the whistle on corruption and pressing for greater liberty.
“So, even if censorship were morally correct, and it’s not, it has been rendered obsolete by technology.
“The Canadian Human Rights Commission, has shut down offensive websites here in Canada. “But persistent dissidents can simply move their websites to the United States or to Iceland, which has announced its plans to be the world’s leading free speech jurisdiction. “And there’s another paradox of censorship in the Internet age: out of the billions of pages on the Web, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre estimates that around 8,000 sites are serious purveyors of racism or anti-Semitism. “But by prosecuting these obscure Web sites, we give fringe, marginal ideas more attention and publicity than they would ever have received on their own.
“There is a better way.
“There may be thousands of hate sites, but there are millions of amateur bloggers out there ready to expose and rebut racist lies. “People like Ken McVay of British Columbia, a righteous Gentile who has spent thousands of hours meticulously rebutting Holocaust denial on the Internet. “He doesn’t sue anyone. But he’ll debate anyone. His website. www.nizkor.org, is now one of the most comprehensive archives of knowledge about the Holocaust anywhere. “Ken McVay hasn’t created celebrity haters, like our censorship laws have. But he’s been tremendously effective at rebutting racist lies, as a citizen blogger.
“Of course, we all agree that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denials are odious ideas. But one of the problems with censorship is that the definition of what’s offensive is open to political bias. “Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn was put on trial for a week in Vancouver for merely expressing his political views. “Ezra Levant and the Western Standard magazine were prosecuted for 900 days for illustrating a news story about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with eight of those cartoons. “Prosecuting those acts of journalism was clearly not the intention of Parliament when hate speech laws were enacted.
“And the chilling effect has been much wider than just these and a few other notorious prosecutions. “How many other journalists have quietly decided to pull their punches on controversial issues, just to avoid a nuisance suit or human rights complaint? “How many TV and radio stations have avoided vigorous discussions of controversial issues, out of fear of censorship from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, acting on behalf of the CRTC? “(And why is it the CBC has an in-house Ombud to deal with questions of fairness, while private broadcasters have a different regeime?)
“ This not hypothetical; in 2004, a handful of complaints convinced the CRTC to yank the licence of CHOI-FM, one of Quebec’s most popular radio stations. “Imagine that — a government order that, had it been allowed to stand, would have destroyed dozens of careers, a successful business, all because of hurt political feelings. “That’s how Hugo Chavez handles radio stations he doesn’t like. But that’s just not the Canadian way.
“That’s why non-partisan NGOs like PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have all condemned government censorship, and section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in particular.
“Even anti-hate groups like B’nai Brith Canada have expressed grave reservations about human rights commissions, which were created to be a shield to protect Canadians and their rights, have instead become swords, used to destroy our rights. “B’nai Brith itself was the subject of just such a nuisance complaint.
“My last observation is that as technology has enhanced our freedom of speech, Canadian courts have too.
“In the 2008 Supreme Court case about defamation law, — “WIC Radio versus Simpson.”
“The court unanimously ruled that: “[w]e live in a free country where people have as much right to express ridiculous and outrageous opinions as moderate ones.” “And just last September, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal declared section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional.
“Mr. Speaker, censorship was never a moral idea, but now it’s impractical too. “Technology and human innovation came first, making the censors obsolete. “Our judges were the next to weigh in, reaffirming that censorship is a violation of our Charter values of free speech. “So now it’s time for Parliament to modernize our laws, and remove the archaic censorship provisions. They are unwelcome remnants of a different era.
“It is my hope that this Senate inquiry will begin the process by which Parliament brings our laws into synch with Canada’s values:
“Our love of freedom;
“Our ability to handle differences of opinion peacefully;
“Our national embrace of the technologies of communication; and
“A clear message from the courts that Canada as a country must live up to our national promise of freedom for all.
“As a journalist, I know the value of free speech. And as a Senator, I have a duty to protect it. Thank you.”
Amen! Hallelujah!
Give that man a cigar!
I’ll buy him a box of cigars.
Yes it about time to stop these thin skinned a#$@ who want to stifle free speech. I mean, how spooky does Canada have to get with these HRCs before the clueless masses finally clue in? I don’t want to live in a Canada where people have to live in fear with respect to what they may say. Enough of this already!
Harper where’s your balls?
Mike Duffy was instrumental in saving us from the devious, opportunistic leftist coalition (Dec.2008). It doesn’t surprise me that he would fully support freedom of speech. The man is a Canadian gem.
Erosion of freedom of speech in Canada. What else do we expect with the almost complete takeover of the educational system by the left. The stifling of free speech is the modus operandi of the left, both of the fascist and communist varieties.
“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I think wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind” John G Diefenbaker, House of Commons, July 1, 1960.
The assent of the Canadian Bill of Rights of 10 August, 1960 was just not good enough for “PET”
Here here!!!! If others in my house weren’t sleeping right now I’d have hollered and pounded my fist on the table in affirmation. Duff you’re the man!!!
Its time to reaffirm our commitment to liberty. Lets not stop with section 13 of the Human Rights Act, lets keep the momentum going and repeal the election gag law. Lets remove all barriers to unfettered freedom of speech.
This was so moving, I got goosebumps. If I wasn’t so partial to PM Harper, I’d say Duffy for PM!!!
Free Mike Duffy?
Thanks for the tip ~ I’d advise all you fellow Katers to get in on the scam before everyone else has to start paying for it.
This is like the carbon trading thing, right? I lost a pantload on that one, so if I can get in on the ground floor on this new scheme that’d be great!
Thank You Tim for your post 1:24 AM. The Canadian Bill of Rights is now my e-mail signature.
Thanks so much for posting that Kate.
It is about time – good on Duffy and well said. A senate inquiry is a good beginning. Letters, phone calls, emails, petitions, and decisions by the supreme court will all assist Duffy in the fight for us all to regain our freedom of speech and freedom from harassment/censorship.
I hope Harper stands with us and backs Duffy on this fundamentally important issue.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/RepealSection131/
Nice speech. Glad to see another Senator like Ann Cools who actually do something for the Nation.
JMO
“Nice speech. Glad to see another Senator like Ann Cools who actually do something for the Nation.”
Yup, heard her on CFRA the other day. We certainly get value for our dollar with her.
And, a pat on the back to the pudgy little guy too….
Bravo, Senator Mike Duffy!
Will his speech make it onto Solomon’s Power & Politics, Clark’s Power Play, Mansbridge’s The National, Taber’s and Oliver’s Question Period?
The PM made a great choice in Duffy for the Senate much to the chagrin of his fellow journalists. He became a pariah among his peers, that says a lot about them.
Serious issues like this require serious attention, something that would escape the tabloid journalists sitting in the chairs of the political programs on our main networks.
Duffy’s appointment to the Senate was good stuff but it probably meant another neo-Liberal in the newsroom.
Great speech.
“Ordinary people couldn’t join in the national discussion. They were reduced to the role of spectators, with little chance to participate beyond shaking their fists at the TV set, or writing an occasional letter to the editor.
He forgot yelling back at the radio: “You don’t speak for me!”
One of the benefits of the last prorogation is that the Conservative Senators are now in charge of the Committees in the Senate and, presumably, also able to determine the agendas.
‘THANKYOU’ Mr. Duffy
And No-where did i read “This is What Canadians Want”
A phrase that is Woven into the liberal/dipper mindset.
Mike Duffy would be a laughable caricature on the best of days. The pap that emanates from him is just more right wing rhetoric. He does not speak for me.
On a related note, freedominion.ca is reporting Darren Lund is appealing Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Wilson’s December decision which overturned an AHRC decision against Stephen Boissoin.
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=129678&sid=223010c44a910e1503d620352e09466a
Mr. Lund publicly mused about appealing the decision earlier this month here in an email correspondence. Some interesting comments regarding financing were made by Mr. Lund in his email. According to him, he picked up the entire cost after a certain point, that point being when the AHRC originally ruled against him in 2005.
http://unitarianscalgary.org/pipermail/sj-forum_unitarianscalgary.org/2010-March/000228.html
The commission dismissed my complaint against Mr. Boissoin in January 2005. I appealed, and was granted a Panel Hearing, but had to take carriage of the complaint process. I undertook my own investigation and document preparation with no professional legal assistance and no financial support. The Human Rights Panel upheld my complaint, finding that the letter did contravene Albertas human rights legislation. Mr. Boissoin appealed the Panel ruling to the Alberta Court of Queens Bench. There were two intervenors on Mr. Boissoins side at the Court of Queens Bench: the Alberta Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
The law firm of Chivers Carpenter (lead counsel: Patrick Nugent) agreed to represent me in the appeal at the Court of Queens Bench. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful. The Court of Queens Bench overturned the Panel decision and found that Mr. Boissoins letter was not likely to expose the gay and lesbian community to hatred or contempt. My legal team generously worked pro bono on the appeal, but significant disbursement costs were incurred. Fortunately, despite winning on appeal, Mr. Boissoin was not granted any court costs for the judicial review as he had requested.
Regardless, I hope the process started by these Senators continues with zest.
The fat little bald guy actually can speak! I hope he isn’t just playing to the cameras on this one.If his fellow dipper/leftard senators detest him,good.Means he is doing something right.A sure sign it is good.
I read Duffy’s impassioned speech on free speech. And I can agree with most of it. However, in all the billions of words spent on free speech there is one topic that is studiously avoided. That is “responsible” speech.
Everyone wants to be free to speak their minds – but freedom of speech also carries with it responsibility for what is said and who it hurts.
People seemingly want freedom – but without responsibility. Without responsibility, freedom of expression will cease to exist . . . . .
“Mike Duffy would be a laughable caricature on the best of days. The pap that emanates from him is just more right wing rhetoric. He does not speak for me.”
Posted by: T at March 31, 2010 9:01 AM
And you are completely entitled to that opinion and position in a free country. Isn’t right wing thinking wonderful.
But if you and yours had your way, you would be able to say what you want but the rest of us free thinkers would be silenced. Do you see the irony here, T?
Sober second thought; better late than never.
David, you mean, for example, from hereon labeling “T” a totalitarian censorship loving murderous thug for saying something really stupid?
regarding David and ‘responsible speech’ – while this is a lovely goal, responsible speech is not something that should be mandated by law. Once you get into the business of imposing penalties on ‘irresponsible speech’, figuring out who got hurt, barring offensive speech or hurtful speech, you start having to make all sorts of borderline decisions, and then one day you turn around and realize that you no longer have any form of free speech.
You don’t have a right not to be hurt by someone’s speech, not to be offended by someone’s speech. Other than incitement to violence, libel, slander and actual criminal speech, there should be no state limit on what you say.
“Everyone wants to be free to speak their minds – but freedom of speech also carries with it responsibility for what is said and who it hurts.
People seemingly want freedom – but without responsibility. Without responsibility, freedom of expression will cease to exist . . . . .”
Posted by: David Hildebrandt at March 31, 2010 9:20 AM
Responsibility? What exactly does that mean? As long as one says the warm and fuzzy things that makes people happy? Is that responsible speech? Don’t hurt no feelings?
No Davey, when it comes to speech, freedom trumps all. People will decide what is irresponsible speech and ostracize that person. Problem is, what you and the leftards think is irresponsible speech is often the voice of the silent majority. The voice that yells back at Peter Mansbridge, “You don’t speak for me!”
DH
The thing with ‘responsible’ speech is that its the individual who has to be responsible for his own speech. Otherwise its not ‘free’ speech, and if its not ‘free’ speech, then we aren’t responsible.
We have to exercise our tolerance of loons, in order to access freedom. A public that has freedom, has an answer for the loons.
The problem with those who advocate censorship, is that they don’t trust the public to be reasonable or fair (or intelligent). With an education system and media that promote PC censorship over freedom, it could well be that the ‘quality’ of ‘public’ degrades significantly.
That’s a whole other problem.
All the bluster and patriotic defense of our civil liberties by the toothless senate is all very endearing but there is a more unseemly political element at work poisoning the well of liberty.
Why do we need senate inquiries into free speech when the Conservatives had the major threat to free speech (CHRA s13) in front of the justice committee for review and repeal, this Tory-led Committee which has now mysteriously stalled on this initiative.
Remember back in grade school when someone said something nasty and the reply was “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”? Aww for the good old days and the common sense of a sixth grader.
Some would prefer Hugo Chavez speaking for them.
Good for Mike, he speaks for me on this.
It is high time to get rid of HRC Section 13.
Ken you nailed it. Go Hugo!
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the freedom to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – Orwell
And guys like Solzhenitsyn (The Gulag) and Muggeridge (the Holodomor) did exactly that didn’t they, T?
What Duffy said is of course enlightening for those that live in darkness. It would be good to hear though that free speech is essence of human existence.
Saying that Canadian, while nice, is to say that Canadian free speech is somewhat set apart from some other free speech, there is certain assumption of limits.
The commenter going by a single letter must be doing what it’s doing to aggravate the audience, nobody, even an ape, can be so stupid.
The commenter going by a single letter doesn’t understand the difference between provocative and vexatious.
About time.
As for scumbags like T, I think he and his ilk MUST get permission from me before they say anything.
How’s that totalitarian scum, whats it like on the other side of the fence?
Of course there are punishments for your so-called “irresponsible speech”.
Being laughed at, derided, ignored and excluded from polite society. But THAT is a decision to be made by the speaker and the spoken-to, NOT some petty little bureaucrat.
Anyone else find it ironic that we need a debate on free speech, talk about a Banana Republic? Hello either it’s free or it isn’t, I’m not interested in debating “Free Speech” I’ll take my chances and use it day and night and the consequences be damned.
DH
That’s how we got here in the first place,then before you know it,children like “T” are out of mom’s basement and running the asylum.
I agree entirely with Rose . To pharaphrase Ann Coulter-
“You’ve got a left and a right foot. You don’t have a middle foot”.
Speech is either free or is isn’t. It’s one of the absolutes in life.
I was initially dubious about Senator Duffy’s appointment. I was very, very wrong. Well done, Senator.
We should all take a moment to be at least a little bit happy, like some of the commenters here – batb, Doug, No-one, and others – about recent developments. We shouldn’t be overconfident or smug, but the fact is that the development of the whole free speech issue has undeniably been a cultural victory of sorts and also a vindication for those who have understood that this is, and always has been, a cultural battle that would eventually be reflected politically, as opposed to a party-politics battle, the decisions of which would supposedly filter down to the rest of us toothless proles.
There’s been a lot of positive things happening recently, and I think sometimes stalwarts who are on the right side are so narrowly focused – and quite properly so – on the ever-ongoing skirmish at the line of scrimmagedon’t notice that one’s side has actually moved the ball up the field and quite close to the goal line.
The fight for free speech, and against kangaroo courts and political correctness, must continue, but the proverbial ball has been moved very well, and very successfully, due to the tenacity of Ezra Levant, obviously, and bloggers like Kate and Kathy and many others. It’s all too easy to forget that a few short years ago comments from regular folks at the Globe and Mail and the Star, and many other MSM sites, overwhelmingly excoriated those who would oppose the HRCs, for example; this situation has not only been pointedly reversed, but the “everbody knows” defenders of the HRCs have been essentially drummed into silence, because they know that their position was largely premised on some “everybody knows”, twiddle-thumbed, reflexive reinforcement of what they felt was an ensconced position.
The real measure of the gains, in a sense, can be observed in the behaviour of the bureaucrat-supporting MSM outlets like the CBC. A few years ago, they would have treated the recent pronouncements of Conservative Senators as a self-evident outrage, and as an opportunity to pounce; the fact that they are now essentially silent on the issue, editorially speaking, and are now directing their “outrage” elsewhere to other “scandals” speaks volumes about a larger cultural force overriding them; these MSM outlets have essentially jettisoned their positions of a few short years ago on the matter of “human rights” commissions. They don’t have the nerve to reassert their former position, because they know what would happen to them. That, my friends, is a cultural victory – albeit, everyone must be vigilant, and the fight continues.
A few short years ago, this story (excerpted here) from the Montreal Gazette –
“Senator Doug Finley led a call Tuesday to scrap a section of Canada’s Human Rights Act that he and other Conservative senators say is being used to stifle free speech in Canada.
“Finley was one of a quartet of Tory senators to lead a Senate inquiry into free speech rights in Canada, rights they felt had come under attack when the speech by a controversial American pundit at an Ottawa university was cancelled and again when a woman in Vancouver sued a comedian because she didn’t like jokes aimed at her.
“‘Despite our 400-year tradition of free speech, the tyrannical instinct to censor still exists,’ Finley said. ‘We saw it on a university campus last week. And we see it every week in Canada’s misleadingly named human rights commissions.'”
– would have been treated as an opening to attack the vileness of Conservatives; now, it reflects a widely held view.
Praise be to cultural forces, including blogs like SDA, but also, it should be said, to the patience and wisdom and timing of the Conservative braintrust who, unlike the Liberals, recognize and nurture the cultural – as opposed to top-down, elite-driven – forces that will always underpin the mandate of any truly representative government.
Canadians, including Canadian bloggers, and not ruling governments, turned this issue.
Yes EBD,
I too look forward to Dawg, the Lying Jackal et al trying to pin the “white supremacist” label on Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin.
PS can somebody please take Romeo Dallaire aside and tell him that while “loser hero” might be a very Canadian job description, not all of us find anything he says very inspiring. Canada is not Rwanda. We aren’t entirely populated by backward, low IQ tribal savages. Yet.
And if we were, we’d have a machete registry by now.
I hate to respond to a troll, but the person who calls him/her self “T” says Duffy doesn’t speak for him/her.
So,”T”, who does? Articulate your vision of a perfect Canada, who your ideal PM,political Party, Supreme Court,Governor -General,would be.Name your perfect Cabinet. Name your Ambassadors to the US,UN,EU,etc.
And what policies you’d have re; immigration, justice,health care,Senate reform,corporate taxes,national daycare,the environment, the military,y’know,the whole shebang.
Better yet,start your own blog,clearly state the above, and let’s see how many hits per day you get.
Better yet,start your own blog,clearly state the above, and let’s see how many hits per day you get
Why would he start his own blog when he gets so many hits on this one?
Posted by: dmorris | March 31, 2010 12:40 PM
…and give some examples of the type of speech you would like outlawed and the type of punishments commensurate with a guilty finding.
What can you add? Amen Mike.
T – He doesn’t speak for you? You might just figure it out yet.
the issue of our time is “free speech” we must keep it. Thanks Mike.
Didn’t see anyone else mention it, but Levant has the link to Hansard with Cools and Wallins statements as well.
Don’t think I have ever read such a large block of text from Hansard before. Well done to all the senators involved in this.
That’s telling ’em, Duff!
Fighting the good fight…
And, yes, I, too, will “keep up our good work”. 😉