We will always defend freedom of expression…but.

Canada's Trudeau distances himself from Macron:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended free speech on Friday, but added that it was "not without limits" and should not "arbitrarily and needlessly hurt" certain communities.

"We will always defend freedom of expression," Trudeau said in response to a question about the right to show a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed, as France's Charlie Hebdo magazine did.

"But freedom of expression is not without limits," he added. "We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet."…

"In a pluralist, diverse and respectful society like ours, we owe it to ourselves to be aware of the impact of our words, of our actions on others, particularly these communities and populations who still experience a great deal of discrimination," he said.

It's clear enough what he means. He doesn't believe in free speech at all – not if it might cause offence. The requirement to not cause offence – and particularly not cause offence to Muslims – is more important than free speech. We should be respectful, or they might get so offended that they're forced to resort to violence and threats to show us how offended they are.

It's notable that this kind of deference is based on the belief that the greater the violence, the more that those committing the violence must have been hurt. To go and cut someone's head off, or to rant and rave against France and Macron, like Erdogan or Imran Khan have done, shows how very deeply these people must have been offended. Which is just the response of the domestic abuser: look what you made me do by your behaviour…talking to that other man, not having my dinner ready, behaving like a slut…it's your fault I have to keep hitting you. 

Comments

  1. Recruiting Animal Avatar
    Recruiting Animal

    “He doesn’t believe in free speech at all.
    Come on, Mick, that’s not true. You can believe in free speech and see no point in antagonizing Muslims or the members of any religion.
    That doesn’t mean he wants to outlaw blasphemy or criticism of any religion or the behaviour of its adherents.
    He called the perpetrators criminals, terrorists, and cold-blooded murderers and said, “They were heinous, criminal acts, unjustifiable by any circumstance and an affront to all of our values”.
    Don’t forget, Canada took in Asia Bibi and Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun, that young woman who fled Saudi Arabia.
    https://www.npr.org/2019/01/13/684961872/young-woman-who-fled-saudi-arabia-arrives-in-canada-as-refugee#

  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Free speech that doesn’t want to offend people isn’t really free speech. I mean, in this context, saying that, with Macron under attack from all quarters – it seems, frankly, just cowardly to me.

  3. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    “You can believe in free speech and see no point in antagonizing Muslims or the members of any religion.“
    More like “the members of any religion that is quick to seek revenge.”
    No one said anything about Piss Christ or the many times Charlie Hebdoe offended Jews. I always get a little suspicious when I see this little two-step — bringing in other religions when it clearly isn’t needed.

  4. TDK Avatar
    TDK

    “That doesn’t mean he wants to outlaw blasphemy or criticism of any religion or the behaviour of its adherents.”
    Oxymoron: criticism of the religion is blasphemy, which is offensive to devout believers. Do you imagine that Mary Whitehouse and her organisation were not not really offended by the Gay Times poem?
    We live in an era when racism is defined (MacPherson inquiry) by the perception of the “victim”. There’s no universal standard by which a dispassionate observer can judge the validity of a claim of offense. You’ve basically handed over the keys to the most radical Islamists. Sure, they’ll never make a bogus claim!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *