the commoner

Elizabeth McMillan
emcmillan@dal.ca

From journalistic responsibility to criticisms of Islam, journalists, lawyers and audience members debated the limits of free speech last Saturday at the University of King’s College.

“Who the hell said the government was our editor-in-chief?” asked lawyer, blogger and conservative pundit Ezra Levant.

“I would rather have the cacophony of freedom where people argue back and forth and it’s upsetting,” he said, than human rights commissions headed by “tyranny.”

The media’s right to offend was the topic of this year’s Joseph Howe Symposium. Roughly 150 people attended the day-long conference.

Presenters discussed whether human rights commissions should hear complaints about opinions published in the media about race, ethnicity and religion. They also debated what role journalists should have in presenting information.

“When I think of human rights I tend to think of things like Nazi concentration camps, women being stoned to death by the Taliban …. the right not to have your feelings hurt is pretty far down on the list,” said the keynote speaker, Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente.

Wente said journalists may not speak or write freely for fear of generating human rights tribunal complaints.

“People in the real world are intimidated by the threat of prosecution and investigation. You can’t enjoy free speech or the government is going to come after you for perfectly legitimate activity.”

Levant said human rights commissions are selective in what complaints they hear and what they consider hate speech.

“One hundred per cent” of people facing human rights commission charges “are white Christian and conservative. I’m not saying there’s no white Christian conservative hate mongers. But what about Tamil radicals, Sikh radicals and Muslim radicals?”

“This is politics masquerading as law,” he said. “Be scared, people.”

Levant said hate speech opens up debate and identifies bigots.

“Every liberal and progressive cause of this century has leaped forward because of speech that was offensive on purpose. When you don’t have money and power, what else can you do but use your speech to offend and upset?” Levant said, defending his right to be intentionally offensive.

He also said mediums like blogging are essential for progressive debate.

“The mainstream media no longer has a monopoly on ideas,” he said.

Levant printed the controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed when he was the publisher of the now-defunct Western Standard in 2006. Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada  filed a human rights complaint. Levant was acquitted but the battle took three years and cost him $100,000.

Levant said it should be up to people to protest and engage with issues.

“Get involved and do your bloody duty.”

John Miller, the associate chair of the Ryerson University journalism school, disagreed with Levant’s statements about absolute freedom of the press.

“We’re at a point in our history where we have to look at journalistic responsibility,” said Miller.

“I don’t want the government to tell me what I can write and more importantly I don’t want the government to tell me what I can hear,” said Kelly Toughill, associate professor of journalism at King’s.

But Toughill also said that words have the power to shape public opinion and do harm.

Because of the accessibility of hate materials on the Internet, Toughill said that readers must know where to look for informed journalism and credible, well-researched sources.

“Journalism can do real and substantial harm,” said Stephen Ward, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin.

“I knew every day I could damage someone’s reputation,” Ward said of working as a foreign correspondent in Bosnia.

“There is a responsibility we have as journalists to be as accurate and as verified as possible.”