Check It Out: Exchanging ideas determines truth
By Joan Janzen
The sign said: “When one door closes, another one opens. Other than that, it’s a pretty good car.” Not only was it a witty sign for a used car dealership, but it’s an excellent example of how important it is to read beyond the first line or headline.
Something that Canadians should be aware of is Canada’s Justice Minister has promised to introduce “online harms” legislation “as soon as possible,” according to a report by Lifesite News.
Andrew Lawton from True North noted the government’s definition of hate speech was informed by a Supreme Court decision from some years ago. Lawton read a line from that particular Supreme Court Decision which said, “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that meet the definition of hate speech and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”
“That is a very dangerous line that the government is embedding in its approach to freedom of expression,” he suggested. The online harms bill has yet to be seen, but we have seen former versions of it.
Lawton interviewed John Carpe, President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and asked him what he thought about the introduction of “online harms” legislation.
“It sounds like a step in the wrong direction. It’s already illegal to willfully promote hatred online or otherwise,” John said. “What I see here is the government stepping toward a repressive regime.”
The term may sound extreme, but he noted the one thing repressive regimes have in common is they all censor, with the government determining what is true or false, good or evil, right or wrong. “Politicians never violate your rights and freedoms without offering some pretext - fighting some cause.”
In this case, they are fighting for the cause of avoiding “online harms”; however, what else is at stake? John suggested such legislation would take away the right of Canadians to have full access to information and diversity of viewpoints. So why is it important to have access to a diversity of viewpoints?
Lawton responded by suggesting it’s only through the exchange of conflicts that we can interrogate and find out what is the truth.
John agreed, saying, “We don’t even know what’s false until after we have a debate. The criminal code of Canada says expressly that truth is a defense. Sounds like it’s not going to be a defense when human rights bodies get involved.”
The proposed legislation would make the Canadian Human Rights Commission the arbiter of what can and cannot be said.
“The government should not be in the business of determining historical truth or falsehood; it’s not the role of the state. Once you have the government doing that on one issue, it grows like a cancer,” John observed.
Nevertheless, some groups desire legislation to regulate and punish websites and new emerging platforms. As a lawyer, John explained, “If we go down this road, instead of engaging in debate and making your case, you’re going to see more and more groups lining up, trying to get the government to shut up their opponents. And that’s fascism in practice.”
Lawton said that even if you fundamentally agree to limit hateful speech lower than the current threshold, the logical question is: who do you trust to be the authority to make that determination? Do you trust the government to define what is good or evil, true or false?
The next step in the process would be the imposition of penalties for expressing different opinions. If this concerns you, feel free to contact your MP and Senators to speak out against this proposed censorship.
Throughout the past decade, we’ve seen reports broadcasted by all the major news outlets which turned out to be completely false. Those reports were not censored. Yet when they were proven to be false, the actual truth was not well publicized.
We are engaged in a massive information war, where headlines can be deceptive, designed to get your attention rather than present facts. While it’s advisable to not allow what you hear on the news to trouble you, you also need to be careful that no one deceives you.
May the peace of God that transcends all understanding guard your heart and mind as you navigate through all the information we receive daily.
At the end of the day, wouldn’t you prefer to have unlimited access to information, do your own thinking and come to your own conclusions rather than having the government determine what content is “safe” for your consumption? It’s in the exchanging of ideas that truth is determined.