"Free Speech" in Canada

This is an interesting interview (video embedded at the end of this post). Americans tend to assume that Western democracies share our views of basic human freedoms. That is simply not the case.

Susan G. Cole, interviewed by Megyn Kelly below, offers a very clear and measured account of the Canadian view of speech rights. She makes the case that "free speech absolutists" actually pose a threat to meaningful discourse, and thus that government has a role in restricting speech that it considers disruptive. It follows then, in her view, that people like Ann Coulter should not be welcome to speak in Canada, because Coulter engages in mere "provocation."

My honest assessment is that this calm, rational, thoughtful woman is more dangerous to civil discourse than a thousand Ann Coulters, Keith Olbermanns, Michael Savages or Michael Moores. We should listen to her patiently, and then mock her mercilessly for being ridiculous.

If Ms. Cole claims to believe that nations have a legitimate interest in silencing those whose views are inconsistent with their national values, isn't it remarkably cynical for her to appear on an American television network to oppose extensive rights of free speech - which we hold as dear as life itself?

Consider: Ms. Cole's viewpoint is completely antagonistic to the social fabric of our nation. She apparently thinks we would be right to say that she has no business spreading her ignorance among our people. If we were like Canada, her perspective would never be heard. But the irony of the situation doesn't even seem to occur to her.

But of course she's not talking about herself. She's one of the enlightened ones who should always have the right to say what they think. She's talking about all those other nasty people.

She says (emphasis added) "We're trying to create an environment which is a safe place to think and learn, and I don't think Ann Coulter contributes to that." And yet the University group that invited Coulter and the students who turned up to hear her apparently thought she would "contribute". Futhermore, I think that Ms. Cole's viewpoint is dangerous and squelches meaningful dialogue rather than contributing to it. How do we know who is right? Why does this woman assume that her own viewpoint is so unassailable that contrary views should be silenced? How is that anything but fascist?

People like Ms. Cole will always find ways to justify denying to others the very rights that they would fight to the death to protect for themselves. And that is the definition of tyranny.