A DIFFERENT FREEDOM,
Theatre protected its own values by denying space to academic, argues Avnish Nanda.
The fallout from the Citadel Theatre’s refusal to host controversial public intellectual and psychologist Jordan Peterson reveals the narrow conception of free expression that many of its most vocal supporters advocate. Often, there is a willingness to recognize the right when it suits expression that serves their interests, but a denial when it does not.
Peterson, originally from Edmonton and a graduate of the University of Alberta, is best known for his opposition to the rise of “political correctness” on university campuses. Political correctness to Peterson means acknowledging the gender his students identify with, the existence of ethnic or racial studies, and failing to recognize the biological determinants that make women better suited for domestic work than men.
Peterson’s transphobic and sexist views have made him a modern-day prophet to some, who admire his willingness to speak uncomfortable “truths.” His detractors consider his positions to be ignorant, hurtful and in some respects, hateful.
It was the latter perspective that likely animated the Citadel’s decision to deny the request made to host Peterson for the launch of his new book. The Citadel refused to host the event, saying it was not reflective of its mandate, values or vision. Inclusivity has long been a core value of Citadel, and by hosting Peterson, it’s easy to see how one of the key pillars that informs its work would be undermined.
While Peterson’s critics were happy the Citadel denied his request to use the venue, his supporters responded by claiming the episode is another example of leftists, social justice warriors, cultural Marxists or others of the same ilk shutting down free speech. Some wanted all of the Citadel’s public funding to be revoked, despite it being a private venue.
These comments about the Citadel’s failure to uphold the free expression rights of Peterson betray a fundamental misunderstanding of free expression in Canada. Under Canadian law, free expression refers to any activity that conveys or attempts to convey meaning. The reason why a wide-ranging definition was adopted — encompassing any form of non-violent expressive activity, from words to conduct — is that it plays such an integral role in our society. Free expression facilitates the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing.
As a Charter protection, free expression is meant to protect against the state limiting the communications of individuals or corporations. Private entities, such as the Citadel, are not typically subject to the Charter. While there are circumstances in which a private venue’s refusal to provide publicly available space to an individual may contravene our human rights code (for instance when the refusal is based on race, religion or gender), it can deny services for other reasons, including opposition to the message expressed.
There are plenty of reasons why a private venue should be permitted to deny hosting a specific speaker or event, regardless if it receives public funding.
For instance, it should be the right of a synagogue or mosque to deny an alt-right organization’s request to rent their basement for a group meeting. Their charitable status should not be questioned, and government grants should not be revoked, if they decline to host a group whose message is an affront to their dignity and values.
Refusal to host a speaker whose views a private entity considers contrary to its principles constitutes a form of expression itself. The refusal contains expressive content, signalling its rejection of the speaker’s position.
The Citadel was clear in this regard, stating that hosting Peterson would undermine its core values. By allowing Peterson to speak, many people, including those belonging to the groups Peterson targets, may feel unwelcome at the venue. To ensure that Citadel remains a safe place for those individuals, it likely denied the request to host Peterson, highlighting to the public in the process both its values and the communities it stands with.
The failure of critics to recognize this refusal as a form of expression itself demonstrates how self-serving the term has become, while their calls on the state to punish Citadel for its expression reveals how committed they truly are to the right.