‘Banning terrorist communications won’t stop terrorism’ Sticks and stones
National Post readers answer the question, Is it reasonable to put limits on free speech in order to combat terrorism?
A fluid approach
❚In any free society, there will always be a natural tension between individual human rights and the collective good. And for a democracy to properly function, a delicate balance will need to be found and maintained between the two. Democracy and free speech go hand in hand, but reasonable limits on hateful and treasonable speech are necessary to maintain civil order and maintain security of the collective whole. Fortunately, the constitution and the courts provide the grease for a fluid approach that responds to the times in which we live. And today’s times call for tipping the balance more favourably toward the collective whole to guarantee survival of the values that we all cherish.
Dan Mailer, London, Ont.
Discuss the issues
❚The freer the better when it comes to speech; not legislated silent by the state, or shouted down by an ignorant, disrespectful mob of protesters. Let us not compound this issue by disrespecting the values and beliefs of others. Let us embrace every opportunity to openly and maturely discuss these issues, instead of brainlessly bombing countries on the other side of the planet and calling ourselves brave.
Iain G. Foulds, Spruce Grove, Alta.
Loose lips
❚ ❚Yes, it is reasonable to put limits on free speech. Loose lips sink ships. It is better to have free speech limited in order to combat terrorism above the ground.
Gordon Akum, Toronto.
There are always limits
❚Freedom of speech always comes at a cost and indeed, there are always limits to free speech. One can’t yell the word “fire,” for example, in a crowded movie theatre unless there actually is one. To combat the cancer of terrorism, it’s probably prudent to place limits on terrorism-related speech, but of course “reasonable” is the trigger word here. The definition of the word “reasonable” must be very clearly and openly defined. Nothing is ever free — there’s always a cost.
Douglas Cornish, Ottawa.
❚There are already limits on free speech when it comes to threats against another person’s life or safety. There are also laws protecting people from libel and slander. Making threats of bodily harm, or carrying out bodily harm has resulted in many individuals spending at least one night in jail. Why should terrorists get a free pass?
Fred Perry, Surrey, B.C.
❚No, we should absolutely not put further limits on free speech. We either have freedom of expression or we don’t. The only reasonable limit should be one of threats or incitement to riot. Our lives are already much circumscribed
thanks to the threat of terror.
Mary C. Beaussart, Richmond, B.C.
Power to the silent majority
❚Why limit free speech at a time when it is the only weapon the silent majority has to battle this scourge? We need to be able to call a terrorist a terrorist. We, the silent majority, need to express our horror at this infestation of murderous Islamic hatred. Limiting our ability to express our outrage will only deepen our apparent powerlessness against this menace.
Gordon Lamont, Lloydminster, Alta.
❚Free speech is only given to the select few in our society. They are the tenured university professors who hold their students hostage with their personal beliefs regarding terrorism and integrating these opinions into their lectures. I have personally encountered these professors and dropped their courses. Those who enjoy unbridled free speech are also the journalists who ridicule our Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).
Arthur Rubinoff, Toronto. ❚There is an old saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” This should still ring true in today’s society.
Stephen T. Flanagan, Ottawa.
❚No, there should be no limits on free speech. If there are limits, how can speech be free?
Wade Pearson, Calgary.
No to ‘soft censorship’
❚Canada has followed the path of “soft censorship” for too many years. Recently tabled legislation directed at combating terrorism offers more opportunity to extend these limits. I’m a fan of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and it’s clear that our southern neighbours are deeply committed to free speech. Indeed, their often-raucous defence of “The First” should give us pause. Mr. Harper’s proposed legislation must be subject to thorough examination from our parliamentarians.
A pillar of liberty
❚It is absolutely not reasonable to put limits on free speech to combat terrorism. Free speech is a pillar of liberty because it serves to protect citizens from their own government, and some of the greatest crimes against humanity have been committed by governments against their own people. The right to free speech does not include inciting, threatening or preparing to commit violence. The primary way to combat terrorism is to wage war — both intellectually and militarily — against the terrorists and especially the states and entities that sponsor them (notably, Iran).
Glenn Woiceshyn, Calgary.
❚At an early age, I was encouraged to speak my mind. I was influenced by my mother who was intelligent, opinionated, articulate and extremely fond of letting everyone know her views (though my father was not always thrilled). Happily, I have learned from her example and enjoy debating with those with whom I disagree. However, as radical Islamists have declared intent to destroy our way of life, any curtailment of free speech will have no effect on their ultimate goal.
Robert McLachlan, St. Catharines, Ont.
Free speech has been twisted
❚Of course it’s reasonable to limit free speech in order to combat terrorism. Indeed, free speech has been twisted to its breaking point. The media, touting the old refrain that “the public has the right to know,” hold part of the responsibility. There are things that we do not need to know, things that are unproductive. We don’t need to know that we have exactly 69 troops on the ground fighting ISIS, and where they are; we only need to know that they are blowing the fanatics up.
Fred K. Lee, Montreal.
Where do we draw the line?
❚Free speech is a contentious issue in every democratic country. Americans regard free speech as the God-given right to say almost anything about anybody, and their constitution guarantees that right. But even in the U.S., free speech has its limits. Canadian slander and libel laws, which are much stricter than those in the U.S., make it an offence to preach hatred of any ethnic or religious group, and if you call your neighbour a crook or a pimp, you better make sure you can prove it. However, in these terrorist-ridden times, free speech sadly has to be restricted for national security reasons. The big problem is, where do we draw the line?
William Bedford, Newmarket, Ont.
A Charter sacrifice
❚The federal government recently presented a bill to the House that hopefully will enable our police forces to find and prosecute terrorists. I firmly believe that war has been declared by Islamic terrorists, which threatens freedom in all democratic countries. As a result, the Criminal Code must be expanded to deal with this threat, even if the Charter of Rights takes a blow in the short term.
Dennis O’Connor, London, Ont.
❚Of course it is reasonable to put limits on free speech. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms omits “responsibilities,” which are implicit and should be obvious. Should freedom of speech include the right to publicly promote and encourage child abuse, murder, rape, assault, racist hatred, and a repressive Canadian dictatorship? Should our scholars, teachers and thinkers be promoting any of these aberrations as virtues? So why on earth should anyone make an exception for terror- ism, whose acolytes will use any or all of them to force their deformed views on everyone else? Terrorism is evil and cannot be allowed to fester or flourish. Full stop.
Rodney Birrell, Hudson Heights, Que.
A contradictory notion
❚It is not reasonable to put limits on free speech. Free speech is exactly that — free speech. It’s all or nothing. To suggest free speech can be limited in some way and still be “free” is contradictory.
James Kang, Toronto.
❚That this question is being asked is frightening in and of itself. Limits on free speech already exist. More limits will create a nation of paranoia; the joy of living will be difficult to hold on to, replaced by the neurosis of daily fear.
Jean Parkin, Nanaimo, B.C.
❚The idea of limits on free speech is an oxymoron of the most moronic nature. There should be no limits on free speech. We already have laws concerning hate speech, inciting violence and so forth, and limiting free speech further won’t combat terrorism. Giving in to the demands of terrorists just emboldens them to make more demands. Standing up for free speech is the only path to follow. Standing up to terrorism is the only solution.
Zev Nadel, Toronto.
A democratic achievement
❚Unfortunately, we have little choice but to skilfully craft measures that effectively target jihadis, their enablers and mosque and social media recruiters, whilst minimizing the unintended consequences. To cry “secret police,” as some have, is to deny history; all such examples have been within fascist, communist or otherwise totalitarian regimes and not real democracies such as Canada. The proposed legislation will be thoroughly wrung through the mill of our courts and through the opposition, ad infinitum. What emerges will have surely been cut down to the core necessities. It’s the way democracies work.
David Salter, Stoney Creek, Ont.
❚No, we should not put limits on free speech for two reasons: one moral, one practical. Morally, free speech — the right to criticize princes or priests without fear of the rack or the thumbscrew — is one of the greatest achievements of Western culture. It has enabled fringe radicals to push for once-thought abhorrent policies such as freeing the slaves, giving women the vote or allowing gays to marry. Why would we ever compromise this treasure for thugs? In practice, banning terrorist communications won’t stop terrorism any more than banning alcohol stopped drinking. Besides, I’d rather terrorists announce themselves. It’s easier for security agencies to identify them.
Jolyon Hallows, Burnaby, B.C.