In mid-July, a Senate committee recommended that so-called 'Residential School denialism' should be banned..The Senate didn’t define the term, but what they were getting at is that people who think indigenous spokespeople claiming there were mass murders at these schools should produce evidence under cross-examination, shouldn’t be allowed to say that..Why?.“The committee heard about ongoing denialism about Residential Schools and that some individuals deny the negative effects on generations of indigenous peoples."."Of real concern to the committee is the small group of vocal individuals who try to undermine survivors’ accounts of the hardships and abuse they experienced at Residential Schools. Denialism serves to distract people from the horrific consequences of Residential Schools and the realities of missing children, burials and unmarked graves.”.So that’s why, then..Given the amount of sorry-money flowing from the federal government to indigenous organizations, one can hardly blame indigenous activists for demanding that nobody be allowed to question the basic premise used to justify handing over billions of dollars to the Assembly of First Nations, as well as to individual indigenous people..They got another $23 billion just this April. .They don’t call it reparations, but they might as well. So that’s just smart..On the other hand, it is not the way we do things in Canada..It is for the purposes of examining just such difficult issues as this, that Canadians have a long tradition of free speech in which both sides of an issue are rigorously examined..Argument is not always pleasant. It certainly makes some people uncomfortable. Heaven knows, we have adversarial discussions about the Constitution, about Confederation itself and more recently about whether Ottawa should control the Internet and whether the use of the Emergencies Act to end the Convoy was justified..And if the Liberal government would get out of the way, we would have an extremely adversarial discussion of alleged Chinese interference in Canadian elections..That the government refuses to expose itself to such an examination shows just how uncomfortable this process of adversarial examination makes the prime minister himself..However, nobody but a Liberal would argue that therefore we should simply accept Mr. Trudeau's word that everything was fine..Returning then to the Senate proposal to ban ‘denialism,’ the very obvious linkages between cause and effect, indeed between victimhood asserted and an invoice for compensatory payment, do rather illustrate the exact reason why free discussion is such an important tool in democratic government..“You owe me because I say so, you aren’t allowed to argue and I’ll tell you how big to make the cheque,” doesn’t cut it. We wouldn’t accept it in business, we won't accept it in diplomacy (and we certainly don’t accept it in divorce proceedings.).For the purposes of this commentary, I pass no judgment on the merits of the indigenous claim that hundreds, nay thousands or even tens of thousands children were variously done to death by paedophile priests, vindictive nuns or neglectful overseers. The issue has been well canvassed by commentators such as Hymie Rubenstein, Brian Giesbrecht and our own Cory Morgan..But here's where we stand:.You think indigenous people ought to produce some evidence to back their claims? Obviously, you hate indigenous people..You think drag shows for little children are too much, too soon? Obviously, you hate gays..You think biological males should not compete in women's sports? Obviously, you hate trans people..And so on. If you’re anti-vaxx, you obviously hate everybody..That's ridiculous..It shouldn’t be necessary to have to mount a defence of free speech in this country at this time, or to warn against outlawing specific beliefs or points of view. But apparently, it is..So for a let us turn to Alan Dershowitz, an American lawyer and Harvard professor who belongs to an ethnicity that has suffered more than most in the last century. And therefore more than most, one might not expect him to be the fearless free-speech advocate that he has become. Yet, he speaks with force and passion to a Canadian tradition: "Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent.".Exactly. If the Senate of Canada thinks that's an outrageous view, they should say why. .Meanwhile, their report should be accepted, shelved, and forgotten.
In mid-July, a Senate committee recommended that so-called 'Residential School denialism' should be banned..The Senate didn’t define the term, but what they were getting at is that people who think indigenous spokespeople claiming there were mass murders at these schools should produce evidence under cross-examination, shouldn’t be allowed to say that..Why?.“The committee heard about ongoing denialism about Residential Schools and that some individuals deny the negative effects on generations of indigenous peoples."."Of real concern to the committee is the small group of vocal individuals who try to undermine survivors’ accounts of the hardships and abuse they experienced at Residential Schools. Denialism serves to distract people from the horrific consequences of Residential Schools and the realities of missing children, burials and unmarked graves.”.So that’s why, then..Given the amount of sorry-money flowing from the federal government to indigenous organizations, one can hardly blame indigenous activists for demanding that nobody be allowed to question the basic premise used to justify handing over billions of dollars to the Assembly of First Nations, as well as to individual indigenous people..They got another $23 billion just this April. .They don’t call it reparations, but they might as well. So that’s just smart..On the other hand, it is not the way we do things in Canada..It is for the purposes of examining just such difficult issues as this, that Canadians have a long tradition of free speech in which both sides of an issue are rigorously examined..Argument is not always pleasant. It certainly makes some people uncomfortable. Heaven knows, we have adversarial discussions about the Constitution, about Confederation itself and more recently about whether Ottawa should control the Internet and whether the use of the Emergencies Act to end the Convoy was justified..And if the Liberal government would get out of the way, we would have an extremely adversarial discussion of alleged Chinese interference in Canadian elections..That the government refuses to expose itself to such an examination shows just how uncomfortable this process of adversarial examination makes the prime minister himself..However, nobody but a Liberal would argue that therefore we should simply accept Mr. Trudeau's word that everything was fine..Returning then to the Senate proposal to ban ‘denialism,’ the very obvious linkages between cause and effect, indeed between victimhood asserted and an invoice for compensatory payment, do rather illustrate the exact reason why free discussion is such an important tool in democratic government..“You owe me because I say so, you aren’t allowed to argue and I’ll tell you how big to make the cheque,” doesn’t cut it. We wouldn’t accept it in business, we won't accept it in diplomacy (and we certainly don’t accept it in divorce proceedings.).For the purposes of this commentary, I pass no judgment on the merits of the indigenous claim that hundreds, nay thousands or even tens of thousands children were variously done to death by paedophile priests, vindictive nuns or neglectful overseers. The issue has been well canvassed by commentators such as Hymie Rubenstein, Brian Giesbrecht and our own Cory Morgan..But here's where we stand:.You think indigenous people ought to produce some evidence to back their claims? Obviously, you hate indigenous people..You think drag shows for little children are too much, too soon? Obviously, you hate gays..You think biological males should not compete in women's sports? Obviously, you hate trans people..And so on. If you’re anti-vaxx, you obviously hate everybody..That's ridiculous..It shouldn’t be necessary to have to mount a defence of free speech in this country at this time, or to warn against outlawing specific beliefs or points of view. But apparently, it is..So for a let us turn to Alan Dershowitz, an American lawyer and Harvard professor who belongs to an ethnicity that has suffered more than most in the last century. And therefore more than most, one might not expect him to be the fearless free-speech advocate that he has become. Yet, he speaks with force and passion to a Canadian tradition: "Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent.".Exactly. If the Senate of Canada thinks that's an outrageous view, they should say why. .Meanwhile, their report should be accepted, shelved, and forgotten.
