[Peace-discuss] Obnoxious hate-speech laws

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Sunday January 13, 2008 07:25 EST
	The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws

I've written several times before about the oppressive, dangerous hate 
speech laws which are common -- increasingly so -- in both Canada and 
Europe, whereby the Government is empowered to punish as criminals 
citizens who express offensive or otherwise prohibited political views. 
But here is a visceral illustration of what these sorts of laws engender 
that ought to give great pause even to proponents of such laws.

Ezra Levant is a right-wing Canadian neoconservative who publishes 
Western Standard, a typical warmongering, pro-Likud journal -- a poor 
man's Weekly Standard for Canadian neocons. In February, 2006, he 
published the Danish Mohammed cartoons, which prompted an Islamic 
group's imam to file a complaint against Levant with the Alberta Human 
Rights and Citizenship Commission, charging Levant with "advocating 
hatemongering cartoons in the media," and the imam specifically accused 
Levant of "defaming me and my family because we follow and are related 
to Prophet Mohammed."

Rather than dismiss the complaint as a blatant attempt to punish free 
thought and free speech, the Alberta Human Rights Commission announced 
that it would investigate. To do so, they compelled Levant to appear 
before a government agent and be interrogated about the cartoons he 
published, his thoughts and intent in publishing them, and the other 
circumstances surrounding his "behavior." Under the law, the Commission 
has the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties on Levant.

The hearing was closed to the public -- only his lawyer and wife were 
allowed to attend -- but Levant insisted on recording the proceedings 
and was directed by the Commission not to publish the video, but he did 
so anyway. Here are the noxious fruits of hate speech laws: a citizen 
being forced to appear before the Government in order to be interrogated 
by an agent of the State -- a banal, clerical bureaucrat -- about what 
opinions he expressed and why he expressed them, upon pain of being 
punished under the law. This is nothing short of stomach-turning:

Technically, the complaint was filed under Canada's anti-discrimination 
and "human rights" legislation, but political life in Canada has seen 
numerous prosecutions for political opinions under that country's 
oppressive hate speech laws. Government investigations for political 
opinions are thus an accepted part of their political culture.

A similar complaint was recently filed against Mark Steyn, arising out 
of the publication in Maclean's of an excerpt from his odious book, 
America Alone. That complaint was also filed by a Canadian Muslim group, 
claiming that the passage "misrepresents Canadian Muslims' values, their 
community, and their religion." Steyn will also now likely be hauled 
before some government tribunal, forced to account for the ideas and 
opinions he expressed, incur substantial attorney fees in defending 
himself, and be subjected to the trauma of some government proceeding 
against him which can result in numerous punishments.

People like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are some of the most pernicious 
commentators around. But equally pernicious, at least, are those who 
advocate laws that would proscribe and punish political expression, and 
those who exploit those laws to try use the power of the State to impose 
penalties on those expressing "offensive" or "insulting" or "wrong" 
political ideas. The mere existence of the "investigation," 
interrogation, and proceeding itself is a grotesque affront to every 
basic liberty.

For those unable to think past the (well-deserved) animosity one has for 
the specific targets in question here, all one needs to do instead is 
imagine these proceedings directed at opinions and groups that one 
likes. If Muslim groups can trigger government investigations due to 
commentary they find offensive, so, too, can conservative Christian or 
right-wing Jewish groups, or conservative or neoconservative groups, or 
any other political faction seeking to restrict and punish speech it 
dislikes.

Down that ugly path lies people like Newt Gingrich, openly advocating 
that the First Amendment be narrowed considerably to exclude advocacy of 
"radical Islam" as a means of combating terrorism. People who favor and 
seek to exploit Canadian and European hate speech laws are but opposite 
sides of the same tyrannical coin as Gingrich and his allies who are 
eager to restrict political expression here.

All sorts of valid criticisms are frequently voiced, including by me, 
about the erosion of basic protections and individual liberties in the 
U.S. But that doesn't mitigate or detract in any way from how oppressive 
these sorts of Canadian and European laws are. One of the core political 
values is and should always remain that which Justice Robert Jackson 
defined in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943):

     "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it 
is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox 
in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force 
citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech is not only the most 
dangerous step a society can take -- though it is that -- it's also the 
most senseless. It never achieves its intended effect of suppressing or 
eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the opposite effect, 
by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and exposure. Worse, 
it converts its advocates into martyrs -- as one sees from the 
hero-worship now surrounding people like Levant and Steyn, who now 
become self-glorifying symbols of individual liberty rather than what 
they are: hateful purveyors of a bitter, destructive, authoritarian 
ideology.

There are numerous ways to combat advocacy of rancid ideas. Using the 
power of the Government to force people to "justify" their opinions to 
government tribunals and face punishment for them is, by far, the most 
malevolent -- far more dangerous than the expression of any particular 
idea could ever be.

UPDATE: Law Professor David Bernstein previously noted that Canada's 
hate speech laws have had unintended consequences, as such laws 
inevitably do:

     "Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn firsthand 
what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. 
For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a 
native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched 
into a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy. Thobani, a 
Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, had remarked that 
Americans are 'bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood.' The 
Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from 
hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans."

Just like Bush followers who bizarrely think that the limitless 
presidential powers they're cheering on will only be wielded by 
political leaders they like, many hate speech law proponents convince 
themselves that such laws will only be used to punish speech they 
dislike. That is never how tyrannical government power works.

-- Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html