Bill Whatcott
Free speech has always been a hot button issue, though perhaps more so now than ever, as governments and private companies have in recent years engaged in an aggressive campaign against what they call “hate speech.” In the West, the conflict has pitted free speech advocates against those who wish to silence opposing viewpoints under the guise of protecting the oppressed classes.
“Free speech is not just another value. It’s the foundation of Western civilization.”
The case of Bill Whatcott provides an example of the ongoing struggle to preserve the right to express one’s views. It is also a stark warning to those who value the liberty of personal expression.
Canada vs. Bill Whatcott
Bill Whatcott is a controversial Canadian advocate who promotes traditional marriage and pro-life causes and is an outspoken opponent of radical Islam. He has been targeted by Canada’s government for committing a hate crime.
His offense? He passed out flyers at a 2016 Toronto gay pride event that included biblical quotes on homosexuality. He also campaigned against Ronan Oger, a transgender woman running for office at the time. A Canadian member of Parliament (MP), as well as others, have claimed that Whatcott’s activities promote hatred.
Bill Whatcott
It is important to note that, while he vehemently argues against homosexuality and transgenderism, he has not called for violence or discrimination against any members of these groups. Indeed, he previously worked as a nurse to several members of the LGBTQ community who were suffering from AIDS.
If the legal attack on Whatcott succeeds, he will be forced to pay over $100,000 in fees. If he is unable to afford this amount, he could be imprisoned. Canada does have some laws ostensibly to protect free speech. However, without something like our own First Amendment in their constitution, progressive activists have twisted these laws in a way that allows them to target individuals who voice opinions that don’t comply with the far-left narrative.
Progressives Bend Free Speech Laws
Canada’s 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms supposedly allows people to express themselves without fear of prosecution. It reads:
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
It then states that Canadians possess the right to freedom of religion, peaceful assembly, thought, belief, expression, and freedom of association. Sounds pretty airtight, right? Not quite. In fact, the document provides a loophole that progressives have exploited.
The phrase “subject only to such reasonable limits” has given Canada’s far left an opening that they have used to push for hate speech laws. By successfully arguing that there should be “reasonable limits” on those who express views that are not politically correct, they have discovered a way to silence speech with which they disagree even if it does not promote violence.
To make matters worse, progressives are also pushing laws that compel certain types of speech. By adding transgender protections, they have mandated that individuals use preferred pronouns. It is this law that put Professor Jordan Peterson in the political spotlight when he spoke out against this provision.
“Free speech is not just another value. It’s the foundation of Western civilization.”
When Will the Fight Come To The U.S.?
In Canada, it wasn’t too tricky for activists to use the government to tamp down on free speech. But this has also happened in other western countries like the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Last year, Mark Meecham — AKA Count Dankula — a YouTube personality, was arrested and fined for training his girlfriend’s dog to do the Nazi salute. In Germany, law enforcement raided the homes of 37 people who were accused of “hateful postings” on social media.
In the United States, free speech has been a sacred right that is protected by the First Amendment. The constitution’s provisions on freedom of expression seem to be unassailable, but this has not prevented some from pushing for legislation that would regulate it.
Many on the left have pushed for more restrictions and have used groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis to support their arguments. In a piece for NBC News, Noah Berlatsky postulated:
“It’s long past time we acknowledged that speech directing hatred and vitriol at marginalized people does not advance freedom or liberty. Rather than defending Nazis always and everywhere, no matter what, we need to take a more balanced approach. That approach should include defending the people that Nazis want to murder.”
Others have also penned op-eds pushing for restrictions on “hate speech,” most often published by left-leaning outlets like The New York Times. Even scarier, a recent poll revealed that college students support prohibitions on speech that contradicts their stated values.
To be fair, the majority of Americans — both on the left and the right — favor protections on speech even if it comes from people who express detestable views. But we would be remiss to ignore the fact that there is a movement in the United States that seeks to use the government to crush this liberty.
The people who wish to control freedom of expression are only starting by focusing on the those found reprehensible by most Americans. After all, nobody likes the Ku Klux Klan, right? However, it would be unwise to assume that they would stop at regulating this detestable viewpoint; it is merely a first step in their bid to ensure that only politically correct views can be expressed, and it is critical that their efforts are subverted. Will free speech survive in the U.S.? Only if freedom loving Americans are willing to fight for it.
Readers: We value your comments! Please weigh in on our comment section below. And remember to check out the web’s best conservative news aggregator Whatfinger.com
One Comment
lazarus
Morally and politically, and especially under Trudeau, Canada is rapidly becoming bereft of all the basic freedoms associated with a patriotic constituency.