Vancouver Courier
for April 29, 1998

The murder of Nirmal Singh Gill, a Sikh janitor, and the recent arrest of five alleged white supremacists, has re-ignited an ongoing debate about racism and what to do about it. Even though I've spoken on this issue before, please indulge any repetitiveness as the argument is critical and remains unresolved.

Every decent Canadian, surely, is opposed to racial violence and inciting it. Most Canadians, I daresay, are opposed to racism. Not all, but most. We're a tolerant nation which explains why so many different national and racial origins are represented in our communities. The question is a simple one to pose but most difficult to answer. What should the law do?

Those who are most often victims are often divided on this question. By no means all Jews agreed with the prosecution of Doug Collins and the North Shore News by the Canadian Jewish Council. Most Jews trace their roots back to countries which did not tolerate dissent and free speech and are as sensitive on the issue of free speech as on racism.

There are two discussion levels - one the philosophical and the other the practical.

On the philosophical level there is the great contest between full exercise of free speech on the one hand and counseling or urging violence on the other.

Even the most liberal of libertarians agree with some limitations on free speech. In the shopworn example, one cannot holler fire in a crowded theater. Or speak out for the enemy in times of war. Or urge violence .. or that a church, temple or synagogue be burned. We've had laws like that forever and they are not questioned.

Where we get into difficulties is when we try to stop people from publishing racist views on the ground that this in itself fosters violence. And as one of those liberal libertarians (on this matter at any rate) I concede that this may be so. Let's proceed on that basis.

If saying nasty things about people based upon race, creed, sex, sexual persuasion and the like is to be a crime, where do we stop?

There's scarcely a public expression of opinion which might not lead to violence and some are almost sure to. Yet we tolerate them. I can think of no group more likely to lead to violence, perhaps widespread, than Quebec separatists. They're not only provocative but seditious (as the law now stands) as well. Do we prosecute Lucien Bouchard and Gilles Duceppe? If not them, what about the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada whose views are seen as racist as hell by many Francophones?

If the likelihood of injury is the main criterion, we should ban automobiles.

And what about free speech?

The Holocaust is so thoroughly documented that only kooks (some admittedly dangerous) deny it. But isn't there a right to be a kook in our society? And if you deny the revisionist the right to deny the holocaust, what about in other areas? Is history to be regarded as unchallengeable? Every day historians challenge others' views of history - shall it be unlawful to do that if some are offended? Who will decide what the correct version is? Presumably politicians who seek the votes of the offended.

What I ask is this - are we going to make offensiveness, the hurting of people's feelings, against the law because it might convert someone to racism and encourage him to violence?

Of course societal pressure by decent people must be brought to bear at all times but that's a long way from getting the state involved.

Then there's the practical. Can it be seriously suggested that making hurtful remarks about minorities (or in the case of women, majorities) is really going to stop bad things from happening?

Not if history is to be believed. I can't think of a single example of where outlawing words has stopped violence or, for that matter, the words themselves.

Our mistake is misunderstanding racists whether they be vicious skinheads or garden variety racists like Ernst Zundel, Jim Keegstra and Doug Collins. They, above all else, crave attention. Their sense of self worth is so low that their highest ambition is martyrdom. Having the law on their tail feeds their attention starved egos.

If the purpose of the law is to discourage harmful conduct and to punish, laws banning free expression have precisely the opposite effect. The conduct is encouraged and the longer the court proceedings last, the better. And does anyone think that Jim Keegstra is punished when he is finally convicted after 14 years of milking the situation for all it's worth?

Of course we must fight racism but I say that is best done by letting Canadians do what they have always done very well - be a decent tolerant people who hold racists in contempt.

If we think that banning racist web sites and evil pamphlets will get rid of skinheads and other racists we're kidding ourselves. Worse, we're especially kidding the potential victims.