"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
So said a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator. What a nice compliment, disguised as an insult. (How nice to be insulted by someone who thinks freedom of speech is a bad thing. Who wants the approval of such a person? I certainly don't.)
So what are "Human Rights" if they don't include, say, the right to speak?
Conservatives (classical liberals) view "rights" as individual, naturally-occurring, and passive (negative) -- the right to use one's possessions, to say things, to move about, etc. The left, on the other hand, views "rights" as collective, and active (positive) -- the "right" to be given things (at someone else's expense) the "right" to have certain feelings or have our feelings protected.
Of course the nice thing about the left's view of rights (if you're a politician) is that they're not naturally occurring. This gives an opening for an almost infinite transfer of power and wealth from private citizens to their rulers.
Say you have a "right" to an education: someone must be compelled to teach you. (Or someone else must have their money forcibly taken to induce a willing teacher.) And the "right" to experience certain feelings (and avoid others) means that the officials in charge have an unending power to rearrange society (and its members) at will, as each new feeling-crisis (real or imagined) presents itself.
I haven't read Mark Steyn's book "America Alone", but quotes like those above indicate there is something very different between America and Canada. America still generally believes in a number of ACTUAL human rights -- where many members of Canada's liberal ruling classes apparently do not; there is no such thing as "freedom of speech" there and nor do they want such a right. Nor in the UK, nor France, nor the Netherlands...
My fellow Americans, be very, very grateful for what you have, while you can still enjoy it.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
So said a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator. What a nice compliment, disguised as an insult.
I'm not sure it's either. Perhaps he's just being persnickety about legal terminology. He acknowledges "freedom of expression" and says that he would interpret a 'freedom of speech' claim as a 'freedom of expression' claim.
The second is recognized under Canadian law. The first is American terminology.
A poster from the comment thread;
Ok. I've read it again and the most charitable interpretation (and I think the correct one) is that Mr Steacy is being a language nudge. The US bill of rights includes the phrase "freedom of speech" but the Canadian Charter rights uses the more expansive "freedom of expression". Raising a "freedom of speech" claim in a Canadian pleading would be using US terminology.
The subtext here is that he's upbraiding his interviewer for using the wrong term, and implying that she's ignorant of Canadian Civil Rights law - if she was familiar with the right in question she would be using the proper Canadian term, rather than an Americanism.
Where he goes off the rails is saying that it's an American "concept". Well, it is an American concept, but the Canadian Charter rights incorporates the very same concept. Using the wrong word doesn't change the concept.
I'm not sure it's either.
Having now read several pages of context in the transcript, it seems to me it's both. Yes, on one hand, (1) he's referring to the precise Canadian legal language, but (2) he's also saying it has a different meaning, scope, and thrust than the American equivalent, (3) he's saying it's not his job to give it any weight or value in his investigation, just report the facts, and (4) yes, I still hear an element of anti-US slam in the "persnickety" nature of his objection. (He often says other things are not his job to evaluate too (pg. 22, for example) but doesn't toss in the "American" tidbit, or anything similar.)
MR STEACY: Regardless of the fact that you are conversing with somebody else, you don't have the right to say absolutely anything you desire, especially in a written format.
The US also holds there are limits on "freedom of speech" -- but it's more in a matter of public death threads or threats to safety (yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater). This individual clearly doesn't recognize such a distinction.
MR. KULASZKA: Are you aware that the Supreme Court held it [a joking threat] had to be part of a large-scale scheme in the public?
MR. STEACY: I am not specifically aware that it said it that way, but I will take your word for it...
The speech in question, in this man's mind, violated the law. The distinction he sees is that you're allowed to express certain ideas in certain language and context, but that not all ideas are protected in all contexts. (In particular, he doesn't see much importance even in context -- he just believes some statement are legally unacceptable.)
So that looks to me like a fairly significant difference, especially as he seems to see it.
I'm not sure it's either. Perhaps he's just being persnickety about legal terminology. He acknowledges "freedom of expression" and says that he would interpret a 'freedom of speech' claim as a 'freedom of expression' claim.
The second is recognized under Canadian law. The first is American terminology.
A poster from the comment thread;
Posted by: Ryan W. on May 3, 2008 09:11 PM