How our government should clarify freedom of expression!

Canada is sought by many immigrants in search of opportunity. Some of the contributing factors in turning Canada as a priority are its constitution and legislations. The latter fortify the interest of the newly arrived, by defining their status as equal to the rest of the population. Of course, perfection is impossibility.

The other day, I was having a chat with a friend of mine. He decided to share a white supremacist link with me. I was uninterested, as I try to keep these groups out of my content mind. However, I was shocked to hear that the website has a forum designated for Canadians. It also turns out that the Canadian forum is one of the most active on the site, with nearly 90 000 posts. Here is the link.

I decided to browse through the site and found the casual racist and xenophobic remarks; apparently Canada%u2019s downfall will be a result of an over-breeding of non-whites. What I found particularly comical wasn%u2019t only the altering of %u201Cethnicity%u201D to %u201Crace%u201D but also the inability to comprehend the notion of religion. Anti-Jewish, anti-Islamic and anti-Sikh statements seem to be on the forum%u2019s agenda. Of course they are probably against more than just these three respective religions, however, I did not have the time to find out. Browsing 90 000 posts is time consuming. The issue here is that I never really knew that faith played a role in the outcome of our skin colours.

Ridiculously, the Canadian Catholic News fortifies the right for these statements by emphasizing on %u201Cfreedom of expression.%u201D The provided article speaks on behalf of Canadian Catholics advocating for freedom of expression. I would have to disagree with the statements made by Deborah Gyapong, the author of the article. She applauds the stance of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for not taking a stance against Marc Lemire, a Toronto webmaster in charge of the far-right website Freedomsite.org. The website contained blatant racist and homophobic content. From what I got, freedom of expression should permit criticism of any ideology or notion, which is fine by me. I personally believe that the criticism of religion, a form of ideology, should be openly accepted. But what if this criticism is not directed towards an ideology, but towards a group of people prescribing to this ideology or born with certain physical features? In addition, what if this criticism is irrational and conveys hate?

If freedom of expression is to be taken so ambiguously, then I guess it might as well be used as a defense for those shouting out their criminal intent. If such vital Charter terminologies are not given limits, then freedom of expression, might as well be used as a defense for stabbing. After all, stabbing is a way of expressing one%u2019s discontent of another. That is why the notions denoted by our Charter should be carefully construed, as to ensure that no one is infringed. But we know this already. The following view is supposedly one of our domestic traits. Under section 1 of the Charter, freedom of expression can be limited for proportionate reasons. What is the deal here?

The deal is the inconsistency in our legal system. Consider the landmark Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) case. Irwin Toy Ltd. was disallowed from a certain advertising campaign, due to the presence of legislation, passed by the province of Quebec. The company challenged that in court and later lost. The Supreme Court of Canada construed freedom of expression as %u201Cseeking and attaining the truth is an inherently good activity.%u201D By attributing negativity to a particular group of people based on ethnicity or religion, there is no proof of truth. The forum I provided is not conveying truth, as there is no scientific evidence that blacks or other non-whites are genetically predisposed to criminality.

The irony does not end here. Not long ago, the Harper government had issued a boycott on Iranian president Ahmedinejad%u2019s UN speech. Rightfully so, Canada%u2019s anger stems from its disagreement with Ahmedinejad%u2019s statements. I simply wonder if the Canadian Catholic News would apply their %u201Cfreedom of expression argument%u201D for the case of the Iranian president. The problem of inconsistency is seen yet again. How are these white supremacists any different? The problem is that if freedom of expression involves the freedom of hate, then other freedoms denoted by our Charter will eventually be infringed.

Should these advocates of racism gain significant adherence, would their messages not spread amongst the society and create ethnic and religious tension? If messages such as these are taken more seriously, then segregation will ensue amongst the society. Once there is segregation, there will be subjugation, as people will be deprived of one of their most fundamental rights: identity. Domestically, it seems that the notion of freedom of expression is defined based on the political context. Incites of hate are spreading around the country while the current federal government preoccupies itself with barring the entry to its own citizens and the labeling foreign officials as racist. Please help us complain about this forum to our politicians by writing letters! This is all hypocrisy.