I would first like express my tremendous appreciation to all the supporters of free speech and the free speech wall irrespective of their political affiliation or whatever groups they identify with. What was an annoyance turned into something none of us had ever expected: a nationwide re-inspection of campus free speech policy. Despite a degree of media sensationalism, this was not a left versus right political battle. I am disappointed that Pride Week has had drawbacks due to the controversy. There are legitimate problems that the GLTBQ Centre is actively confronting.
Mr. Smith did not just tear down the original free speech wall 18 hours after it was erected, he destroyed the entire frame and board which comprised the wall. This attack on free speech was entirely conducted by a militant minority who does not represent anybody other than themselves. I had no idea that the wall was going up during Pride Week, but even if I did know, why would that be a problem? You can’t have freedom of sexuality without the freedom of expression. You cannot be unapologetic for who you are and what you stand for if you are not allowed to be offensive in the first place. After Mr. Smith accused me of homophobia on Facebook, I tried to defend myself by citing a gay family member but this comment was deleted because it created an “un-safe space” as it disclosed the sexuality of an individual.
Mr. Smith has justified his actions under the veil of social justice, political correctness and creating a safe space. To censor is to assume political privilege over others. It is to use force or intimidation to prevent ideas from being shared in order to advance one’s own instead. Censorship is not reason or persuasion — it is violence.
Free speech is the ultimate ally of the politically powerless and the marginalized. It empowers people to challenge the status quo and demand better. Free speech is the ability to convey ideas without the use of coercion. Without free speech, individuals are denied the means of being critical to those in power and question the validity of things. People are denied the opportunity to seek out truth for themselves because they have the potential of being wrong (assuming that the omniscient social planners are always right).
Mr. Smith is obsessed with classifying individuals and categorizing them into classes, he argues that “if everyone speaks freely we end up simply reinforcing the hierarchies that are created in our society.” In order to equalize the classes, it is sometimes legitimate to use otherwise illegal force and have the state apply laws differently depending on the class and context.
But who makes the call? When confronted by Ezra Levant on Sun News about the arbitrariness of his conception of fairness, he could not even classify himself. He referred to himself as “both powerful and powerless.”
Mr. Smith is against the wall because of the potential of wrongdoing. Well, every human being has the potential of committing a crime. The logic of his argument is that individuals ought to have their rights restrained until proven innocent. Debate should not be centered on the limits to free speech, but the limits to censorship.
The difference between Mr. Smith and myself is subtle but critical: He wants to make everybody equal while I want to treat everybody equally. As only the dead are equal, any call for equality must be enforced through violence. Inequalities will always exist so long as mankind exists. Whether it be under communism, fascism, feudalism, imperialism, or even the free market system, we need to recognize that so long as we live together people will always bump heads regardless of what system we live under. What we need to do is recognize this and turn this into a learning process if we are to mature and advance as a society.
— Ian CoKehyeng,
president, Carleton Students for Liberty
