No. It gives a platform, legitimacy to bigotry
The Canadian Criminal Code prohibits the “wilful promotion of hatred” against members of racial and other groups. This ban on hate speech, though, catches only a narrow category of extreme expression — speech that vilifies the members of a group — and does not extend to more commonplace forms of bigotry.
Despite our commitment to freedom of expression, we recognize that the extreme or radical edge of discriminatory speech that is hateful in its content, and visceral or irrational in its appeal, carries significant risks.
Because less extreme forms of discriminatory speech circulate widely in society, they cannot simply be removed through censorship. Any attempt to do so would require extraordinary intervention by the state.
Because odious attitudes are so pervasive, it is vital that they be confronted and contested in the public sphere. But this does not mean they should be treated as legitimate positions and offered a platform to which few others have access.
Most (but probably not all) of the coded or explicitly racist words uttered by individuals like Steve Bannon and Faith Goldy are not extreme enough to breach Canadian hate speech law.
And so, when Goldy is invited to speak to university students, or Bannon is invited to participate in the Munk Debates, the issue is not whether their words should be censored, as if that were possible in the era of the internet. Instead it is whether they should be given a platform from which to speak.
Even if Bannon and Goldy have a right to say the things they say, that is not a reason to amplify their words and give them legitimacy.
In a formal debate, each of the opposing positions is presented as worthy of serious consideration, and as potentially persuasive.
The Munk debate, with its pretentious trappings, its substantial speaker’s fees and expensive tickets, its emphasis on celebrity, and its surrounding publicity, gives a degree of legitimacy to the debaters and the positions they take.
The claim that the members of a particular religious or racial group are duplicitous or violent, and so ought to be forcibly excluded from the larger community, should not be treated as a debatable proposition that the audience might decide to accept or reject. Whatever the formal outcome of the debate, the inclusion of such a proposition gives it legitimacy in the public sphere and will be counted as a success.
What gets said in the debate, or who is judged to have prevailed, is less important than the invitation onto the platform. This is why for people like Bannon, the withdrawal of an invitation to speak, or being prevented from speaking by protestors, counts as a success. It brings publicity, and publicity is what they crave.
An invitation rescinded also has the great benefit of allowing them to present as victims of political correctness and defenders of free speech.
Whatever its past virtues, the contemporary political debate is a poor vehicle for advancing public understanding of an issue. A debate is organized around diametrically opposed positions, and tends to emphasize performance and competition over understanding and agreement. It does not allow for the development of complex or nuanced arguments or the settling of factual differences.
The bigot’s position necessarily relies on fabrications and distortions. This means that their opponent must spend most of his or her allocated time correcting these falsehoods. To lie takes a moment, to refute a lie always takes longer.
Moreover, because religious or racial bigotry is not based on reasoned argument or a careful assessment of the facts, there is little reason to think that those who hold such views will be persuaded by facts or evidence. What they see is their tribal leader out there, up front, taking on the “elites.”
The views held by Bannon and Goldy and their ilk circulate widely and openly. They cannot be ignored. They need to be opposed.
Reasonable people may disagree about the best strategy for doing this, but treating these views as reasonable, debatable contributions to public conversation is not one of them.