Canadian Freedom of Expression Debate Continues

By Jamie Phillips

As we all know, the media loves nothing more than to beat a dead horse, and the Canadian media has whipped itself into a repetitive frenzy since last week’s Coulter-gate. The deceased equine in question: Free Speech.

Inasmuch as everyone’s is sick of hearing about her, Ann Coulter has made Canadians examine our freedom of speech laws.  Are we too restrictive? Are we inhibiting the potential, raging debates that we could and should be having? Do these hate crime laws infantilize the identifiable groups by protecting them against what may hurt their feelings? Or is demanding a certain baseline of respect a better segue into meaningful, intellectual debate?

Thrown into this rhetorical froth, a new controversy Lorna Pardy filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission regarding comedian Guy Earle. During a performance in May 2007, Earle hurled a tirade of homophobic and sexist insults toward Pardy. Pardy retaliated, twice throwing drinks in Earle’s face; he further retaliated by breaking her sunglasses. 

The Human Rights Commission (HRC) tribunal hearing was supposed to wrap up today (April 1) but on its opening day, March 29th, Earle’s lawyer James Millar walked out, citing that the charge was illegitimate. 

On his website, Guy Earle derides Canadians for being too sensitive, and of the HRC, he declares: “this self-appointed, quasi-legal board of powertrippin’ losers need to be dissolved”(sic).

Comedy is generally accepted as an arena where the typical rules of conduct are suspended; transgressions of social norms are the basis of much comedy. Furthermore, being explicitly offensive is the basis of many a comedian’s career (likewise, certain political pundits we could mention). This is common knowledge. Charging a comedian with a hate crime seems somewhat akin to charging a slaughter-house employee with animal abuse. Sure, both are offensive, but they do have their place in society as we’ve designed it. Context is everything.  

As for the larger issue of free speech in Canada, do we toss out the hate crime laws and become more like the United States, with its decidedly more laissez-faire attitude? I’m not so sure. Freedom of expression is indeed an integral part of a democracy. However, one may wonder if throwing a brick through someone’s window, or uttering death threats as a comment on a controversial piece of legislature is really what the founding fathers had in mind.

But then again, maybe I’m just an overly sensitive Canadian. As they say, a brick is worth a thousand words. Right?

Posted by jamiephillips on April 2, 2010. Filed under Opinion Editorial,WorldNewsVine. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.