It's not too late to admit you were wrong to oppose free speech
Feminists and progressives need to put their egos aside and come out in defense of free speech.
Frustrating as it may be, we often learn things the hard way. It’s natural, and ok, so long as we actually learn it. My fear is that too many continue not to stand up for free speech, despite what is right in front of us, and it’s almost too late.
Free expression is protected under the constitution for a reason. Without it, we risk persecution by state authorities, should we fail to toe their line. People like me — writers, activists, political dissidents — of all people, should know the intrinsic value of free speech, and yet, in Canada, we don’t.
Indeed, it has been writers, feminists, activists, and the so-called left who have most vehemently opposed free speech in Canada — proudly and openly.
The Canadian literary community (CanLit) have been some of the most active on that front, cancelling anyone who dares defend the pursuit of truth and justice when that pursuit takes us away from the preferred narrative, who attempts to discuss “rights” and “inclusion” in a way that conflicts with woke politics, or even who simply defends freedom of expression.
In 2017, Hal Niedzviecki, Editor-in-Chief of Write, The Writer’s Union of Canada’s quarterly magazine, wrote that he “didn’t believe in cultural appropriation” and that, in fact, writers should be “encouraged to imagine other cultures, other peoples, [and] other identities.” Titled, "Winning the Appropriation Prize," his opinion piece argued there “should even be an award for doing so — the Appropriation Prize for best book by an author who writes about people who aren't even remotely like her or him."
CanLit, Niedzviecki rightly pointed out, was "exhaustingly white and middle-class," meaning that if writers failed to explore outside the bounds of their own personal experiences, Canadian literature would reflect that. In order to counter the inevitable (and obvious) dullness of this, Niedzviecki suggested:
“Write what you don't know. Get outside your own head. Relentlessly explore the lives of people who aren't like you … Win the Appropriation Prize."
He was swiftly cancelled. The Writers' Union of Canada (TWUC) issued an apology and Niedzviecki resigned (a decision he described as “compelled”).
TWUC's Equity Task Force issued a statement, saying it was "angry and appalled" by the column, and supported Niedzviecki’s resignation, expressing shock that it was published at all, claiming it was an indication of “structural racism” at TWUC or "brazen malice, or extreme negligence."
The Task Force issued a list of demands, including that the column be removed, the TWUC apologize, “staff, National Council, editorial committee members” submit to “anti-racism education,” and that Write be turned over “to Indigenous and other racialized editors and writers for the next three issues in consultation with the Equity Task Force.” This statement was signed, notably, by Carrianne Leung, a writer who co-authored the petition to have my talk about gender identity and women’s rights cancelled from the Toronto Public Library (TPL) in 2019, and Judy Rebick, founder of the socialist online magazine, rabble.ca, which I worked for and with for many years before quitting in 2016 in protest over my own censorship.
Another of Niedzviecki’s most vociferous cancellers was Alicia Elliott (another co-author of the petition against my talk who also penned a letter to the Mayor of Toronto accusing me of “preaching hate speech” and demanding he speak out against allowing my talk to go forward at the TPL, which he did), who complained that he had edited and published a piece she wrote in the same issue, which was critical of cultural appropriation in Canada.
Would she have preferred Niedzviecki censor her on account of his own biases and opinions?
What Elliot is too blind and power-hungry to see is that her piece benefited from Niedzviecki’s commitment to freedom of expression, which he maintained regardless of the fact he presumably didn’t entirely share her perspective. Apparently, Elliot expected not only that her view be published while the views of those who don’t see things her way not be, but that she be crowned thought-police. Elliot wasn’t just angry that Niedzviecki published an alternate perspective, but that inside his own mind he did not agree with her entirely.
This is the state not only of CanLit, but of the Canadian left. Progressives indeed police words, but it’s also your thoughts they want to control. Any individual suspected to not be on board with the program must be destroyed.
Ironically, the very marginalized, oppressed people who claim they must oppose free speech as alternate opinions are inherently “harmful” or “silencing” to them seem to have a lot of power. Those who jokingly threw in money for Niedzviecki’s imaginary “appropriation prize” on Twitter were also cancelled, as was anyone who dared oppose his mobbing. "Editors get fired all the time,” Jonathan Kay, then-editor of The Walrus tweeted. “What I object to is the shaming, the manifestos, the creepy confession rituals." He added, "The idea of turning cultural appropriation into a sort of thoughtcrime that demands shaming and censorship [is] problematic."
~~~
In 2015, author, Salman Rushdie, told L’Express: “We are living in the darkest time I have ever known.” Earlier that year, two Muslim terrorists had attacked the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris, killing 12 people and injuring 11 more. While few in the West would say those journalists deserved to die, many accused the paper of “racism” and “Islamophobia,” arguing they aimed to “provoke” and “offend,” implying that, in some way, these kinds of attacks should be expected.
“Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences,” we are told, ad nauseum. In Canada, this goes even further: “Free speech does not exist,” I have been told many times by progressives and feminists. What they mean is not that free speech doesn’t exist under the law, but that it is not worth fighting for. The excuse for declining to defend free speech is that, so the story goes, it is really only something the powerful want and can access, and that the “marginalized” will never have. Those who stand up for free speech are therefore already guilty: we are defending “rich white men,” racism, misogyny, and every variety of phobia. This is of course not true, as evidenced by the legions of activists, journalists, blasphemers, and political dissidents who have been persecuted and killed on account of their words and fought for free speech at their own risk. They know we need free speech in order to challenge and oppose those in power. It is also not evidenced by the cancellers who claim to be the marginalized, yet have social media platforms, corporations, academic institutions, and the government on board with their politics, ideologies, and censorship goals.
It seems to me that the only people who don’t support free speech are the ones who believe their speech is protected, that they aren’t vulnerable to censorship, and who want detractors to be silenced. People who have had to fight for free speech know how important it is.
They also know the point of standing up for free speech is that you protect free speech for all — not just those who have power in that moment and not just those you like.
That said, in a way they are right. In Canada, “freedom of expression” is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we also have provisions that allow the seizure of “hate propaganda” and the criminalization of those who “wilfully promote hatred.”
“Hatred” is of course up for interpretation, and considering that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party added “gender identity and gender expression” as protected categories under the criminal code in 2017, and invoked the Emergencies Act in an attempt to silence, punish, and criminalize those protesting Trudeau’s unconstitutional vaccine mandates and Covid lockdowns this past year, I think it’s clear the Canadian government is willing to interpret “hate” to mean anything that goes against the party line.
This concerns me as someone who is routinely accused of “promoting hate” in my attempts to have rational, honest conversations about human biology and women’s rights. It concerns me as someone who wants Canada to be a free country, not a place where people who protest government overreach are cut off from their bank accounts, fired from their jobs, or thrown in jail. It concerns me to witness the level of threats aimed at women like J.K. Rowling for questioning the erasure of women through language like “menstruators” and “pregnant people.” It horrifies me to see the recent violent attack on Rushdie on account of what amounts to heresy not only defended in Iran as righteous, but celebrated.
While progressive Canadians may consider themselves worlds apart from those who wish Rushdie dead, labeling an individual guilty of “hate” and a mortal danger as a result of disagreement, controversial opinions, or even offensive words puts them on dangerous ground themselves. I have heard feminists say outright that they do not support free speech if that speech amounts, in their opinion, to “classism,” “sexism,” or “racism.” I have now been cancelled by most of those feminists because of my defense of free speech and my insistence on engaging with and defending other blasphemers. I have been asked by friends why I seek to “provoke,” implying that the attacks on me are expected and deserved. If only I would be “polite” and avoid speaking out in defense of truth and (actual) justice, I would be safe (and ensure no one feels uncomfortable, God forbid).
When we decide that the speech of some is so offensive it should be criminal, we enable persecution based on politics and ideology. When we argue those we disagree with deserve to be silenced, punished, jailed, threatened, or hurt, we not only impair democracy, but we endanger people like J.K. Rowling and Salman Rushdie.
Justin Trudeau wants to make blasphemy illegal in Canada. He would not frame it as such, but should he succeed in his efforts to “stop online hate” and pass his anti-hate legislation, my failures to subscribe to the religion of gender identity ideology — that is to say, the faith-based belief that individuals can literally change sex through proclamation — and my refusal to adhere to demands to use incorrect pronouns and repeat religious mantras like “transwomen are women” will ensure I am unable to speak or work in Canada, and may well make me a target for criminal charges.
~~~
On August 13, in response to the attack on Rushdie, Trudeau tweeted:
“The cowardly attack on Salman Rushdie is a strike on the freedom of expression that our world relies on. No one should be threatened or harmed on the basis of what they have written. I’m wishing him a speedy recovery.”
The hypocrisy of this statement is appalling, as Trudeau himself has made his opposition to freedom of expression clear, as have legions of Canadians who believe words are violence and that those who don’t share their views should be removed from society.
It’s not too late to admit you were wrong, and come out in defense of free speech. In light of the terrifying violence inflicted on Rushdie on Friday, the ongoing threats against women like Rowling, and the knowledge that if we don’t stand up for and protect free speech, you too could one day find yourself in the bad books of the powers that be, protecting your ego or your social status can no longer be your priority.
Maybe I am just reading something wrong, but it sounds like what Niedzviecki said would almost be something those of us that are a little cancel-happy would like, to create things about people that are very unlike you, to think about things through the lens of someone you don't relate to very much. For all the DEI talk, I think by far it's biggest merit is that by creating a space full of people from all over, with all sorts of different ideas and backgrounds and countries of origin and religions and everything, you get a beautiful mix of thought processes and interpretations of the same event; very different people working on the same problem makes possible the birth of some very creative ideas. That, to me, seems to be Niedzviecki's point so why did they go after him/her/them idk. Maybe I am reading the facts wrong. Regardless, I really appreciate your research and representation and interpretation of the facts! Big fan.