The death of free speech? Come on. - Macleans.ca
 

The death of free speech? Come on.

The people who claim free speech is under attack? The loudest voices in the room, speaking from protected perches, writes Rachel Giese


 
Kellie Leitch rises during question period in the House of Commons in Ottawa. (Justin Tang/CP)

Kellie Leitch rises during question period in the House of Commons in Ottawa. (Justin Tang/CP)

This story, by Rachel Giese, was first published at Chatelaine.

If you are fortunate enough to live in a democracy in 2017 and have access to a phone and the Internet, you have unprecedented and an almost unfettered ability to express yourself. You can self-publish a book, create a blog or Tumblr, post on Instagram, Facebook or Twitter, shoot a video for YouTube, record a podcast, create a newsletter, email a politician or a journalist, or go online and order a baseball hat with your political beliefs emblazoned on it. You are pretty much free to say whatever you want, no matter how smart or idiotic, temperate or heated, honest, false, or completely bonkers.

And yet, never have so many people despaired over the presumed death of free speech. A couple recent examples: Last fall, Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto released a series of videosin which he declared war on “political correctness.” Peterson doesn’t believe transgender people have the right to ask him to use “she” and “her” if Peterson has decided the person is male (and vice versa). “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them,” he’s said. To respect someone else’s self-definition, he argues, would infringe on his right to free speech.

Meanwhile, Motion 103 has Conservative leadership candidates equally agitated that they, too, are in imminent danger of being gagged. Kellie Leitch, never one for subtlety, has gone all in on the metaphor, with a petition featuring a picture of woman with a sticker over her mouth that reads “Stop Motion 103.”

The motion, which was introduced by Liberal backbencher Iqra Khalid, carries no legal weight, has no legislative authority and changes not a single one of our laws. It simply asks the House of Commons to acknowledge “the increasing public climate of hate and fear” and to condemn “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” Somehow this has been interpreted by Pierre Lemieux as “an attack on free speech,” by Maxime Bernier as “the first step” to restricting the right to criticize religions, and by Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose as a motion that will “intimidate rather than inform.”

MORE: Talking ‘Islamophobia’ with Liberal MP Joel Lightbound 

Milo Yiannopoulos speaks during a news conference, Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2017, in New York. Yiannopoulos has resigned as editor of Breitbart Tech after coming under fire from other conservatives over comments on sexual relationships between boys and older men. (Mary Altaffer/AP/CP)

Milo Yiannopoulos speaks during a news conference, Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2017, in New York. Yiannopoulos has resigned as editor of Breitbart Tech after coming under fire from other conservatives over comments on sexual relationships between boys and older men. (Mary Altaffer/AP/CP)

Then there’s Milo Yiannopoulos. Up until this week, when his flippant comments about pedophilia jettisoned his career, the former Breitbart News editor acted as the millennial majorette for the alt-right, lobbing malicious attacks at Jews, immigrants, African-Americans, Muslims, women, transgender people and anyone he found unattractive. Last year, he incited a vile racist and sexist crusade against Saturday Night Live comedian Leslie Jones. When he was banned from Twitter for it, he cried free speech. He also proclaimed himself a martyr to the cause of free expression when rowdy protests shut down his recent speaking engagement at Berkeley College in San Francisco.

MORE: Why do some Trump supporters call the President ‘daddy’?

For many conservatives, especially on the far right of the spectrum, free speech has become a kind of fetish. They invoke it like a magic defence against allegations of bias and bigotry. And yet, some of the staunchest free speech advocates see no conflict in using that right to call for limits on the liberty of others, like those who want to marry someone of the same sex, to use the washroom that reflects their gender as they define it, to cover their hair as religious observance, or to determine what goes on in their own uterus. At issue is not an open, civil and respectful exchange of ideas. Rather, what the conservative free speech posse wishes to protect is the power to gin up hysteria and insult others, particularly people in minority groups, without consequence or criticism.

But, of course, that’s not what free speech laws were created to do. Protections of free expression ensure that citizens aren’t punished by the state, thrown in jail or sent into exile for championing dissident views. That doesn’t mean everyone with an axe to grind is entitled to an audience. That doesn’t mean that a comedian won’t be criticized for a rape joke, or a homophobic business won’t be boycotted. That doesn’t mean a crowd is allowed to hurl slurs at a woman in a hijab. Even in the US, where there’s enormous latitude when it comes to free speech, the right is not absolute. Libel and slander are illegal, as is threatening violence against the president.

And, as a matter of etiquette, cultural norms or old-fashioned common sense, we routinely accept limits to self expression. Corporate employees abide by office dress codes and don’t show up to work in cut-off shorts and Crocs. TV and radio broadcast regulations forbid the airing of adult content during certain hours. Many of us don’t use curse words in front of our kids or our grandparents. Few of us feel silenced by these concessions.

But the free speech doomsayers believe we are living in the end days of democracy, and they are the ones who are suffering. Think I’m exaggerating? A week after a white nationalist gunned down six men peacefully praying in Quebec City mosque, when the traumatized congregants had barely finished washing away the blood, conservative columnist Barbara Kay tweeted, “How long until my honest criticism of Islamism constitutes a speech crime in Canada?” It says a great deal about Kay’s self-regard and her priorities that she painted herself as a victim of the tragedy.

In Peterson’s case, he fancies himself a hero for refusing to do what most of us would do as a simple matter of politeness: that is, call someone what they’d like be called. By Peterson’s logic, I have the right to address him as “Dame Judi Dench” or “Chuckles the Clown.” But would that make me a fearless warrior for free speech? Or just self-aggrandizing and sort of pathetic?

But why be courteous and decent, when you can be famous and rich? Peterson’s free speech rants have helped him rack up over 80,000 Twitter followers, 8,000 Facebook likes and 3,000,000 views on YouTube. That’s a sizeable audience for who someone who claims he’s being censored. He’s also got a blog, a new book and an online self-help course. He’s even launched a Patreon account where his fans give him US$12,000 per month — a very nice top up on his $160,000 annual prof’s salary — to support his lectures on political correctness.

And that’s what’s actually at stake — profile and profit, not free expression. Until the pedophilia comments came out, Yiannopoulos’s free-speech-victim routine landed him a US$250,000 advance from Simon & Schuster for a book, which was at the top of the pre-order list on Amazon (the offer has since been withdrawn). Turns out there’s some speech his fans won’t support after all, the courage of their convictions be damned.

For Conservative leadership contenders, harping on about the dangers of Islam isn’t about a willingness to take an unpopular stand. It’s about rallying the base. Kellie Leitch may be an accomplished doctor with anywhere between 18 and 22 letters after her name, but as an MP her performance has been at best mediocre. As a leadership candidate, the only thing that’s distinguished her has been her willingness to target immigrants. And so, she’s leaning in.

As for the evidence of widespread censorship, where exactly is it? Conservative viewpoints abound on Fox News, Rebel Media, Breitbart News Network and the Sun newspaper chain. You can get your fill and then some of misogyny, racism and gay bashing on Reddit, 4chan and Twitter. The anonymous citizens who deluged Iqra Khalid with rape and death threats didn’t seem the slightest bit inhibited in their attacks.

No doubt all of us would benefit from better, smarter and more open debates, and from listening more to those we don’t agree with. But it’s hard to swallow the argument that free speech is under attack when it’s coming from the loudest voices in the room and from the protected perches of a tenured academic post, a column in a national newspaper, and the bully pulpit of a seat in the House of Commons. If those people have been silenced, why are they still shouting?


 

The death of free speech? Come on.

  1. Cause du jour for Con complainers.

    • Yes, persons have access to several platforms that allow people to express themselves in as they see fit this does not in anyway mean that free speech is not being undermined by several ideological authoritarians. Having platforms does not mean that there are people attempting to place unreasonable restrictions on what can be said. Humanity can be technologically advance and still have regressive that love to control what other people say this is not a hard concept.

    • Now in Canada specifically there is Motion 103 which is yes no law but it aims to as I have in bold below the motion 103:

      Text of the Motion 103:
      That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and
      all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole – of – government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community – centered focus with a holistic response through evidence – based policy – making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    • What is Islamophobia you might as well the Canadian government does not care, therefore it is fair to ask if Canadians would be able to criticize Mohammad. (Jordan Peterson video Is this a picture of Mohammad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY) furthermore why do we have quash racism? Removing the place for people to discuss ideas will not remove those ideas from those people. It just pushes these ideas underground or into violent revolt. Most people just want to feel heard but it is these types of MSM mouth pieces will call everyone a racist before they can express their ideas.

    • Jordan Peterson is right nobody should have the right to tell you what to call them as Louie C.K says if I call you an a$$hole you don’t have much say in the matter. You can call yourself a unicorn all you want I will use my cognitive ability to discern how best to describe you so F### your politeness. Unfortunately Dr. Peterson was also right that the law likely dictates that we should not be able to do such to think due to bill c16. Dr. Peterson never said he would not call people by trans pronouns but rather he refused to be forced by the government. Dr. Peterson has had threats to his job and life but this author equates this to seeking views and money. Not to speak for Dr. Peterson but why should he not be paid if people want to pay him for his lectures? Why should you (the author of this article) get to choice who can receive money and who can not? Dr. Peterson was waging a war to allow people to verbalize their point of view and not be afraid of repercussions for wrong think (self-censorship). As Peterson has said
      “dialogue is curative, that’s actually the fundamental proposition, you have to let [people in chaos] talk, you have to let them talk. They don’t even know what they think until they talk. You know, you think you think then talk but no you don’t. You know most people can’t think at all.. To think you have to hold an argument between two opposing positions in your head”

    • To have a functional society people need to talk freely and feel hear/think without self-censorship that the regressive is so fond of enforcing. Just because it is out of sight (‘hate speech’) does not mean that it is out of minds.

      The typical scapegoat for the regressive Canadian Kellie Leitch (a traitor because as a women she should not be conservative) Kellie Leitch wants to screen persons that wish to immigrate to Canada, this is extremely reasonable as it has been done by EVERY GOVERNMENT EVER until recently when regressive decided boarders are offensive.

    • As mentioned earlier Motion 103 will do nothing immediately but will likely lead to more self-censorship and a report that will claim (based on ill-defined terms and flawed statistical analysis) that every Canadian is a racist sexist—I mean Islamophobic that’s the only one on the being rammed through at the moment.

      Islam should be criticized by both critics and Muslims as there are different factions of Islam and there are many that are disgusted by the behaviour of a minority of extremist. But to often they are silent and for good reason, Charlie Hebo. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tawfiq Hamid, Asra Nomani, Zuhdi Jasser who do you imagine have death threats for speaking out against the extremism of Islam. Yes, many conservative are very aware that in Sharia countries (where women can not go out without an accompanying male) that Blasphemy is punished by death (among other penalties). I do not understand how it is irrational to question the logic of Islam and sharia when every Sharia state is authoritarian.

    • And then we come to Milo. Milo said some stupid things regarding pedophile. Milo has also been sexually abused twice and appears to not be coping with that as well. As for other information he is a provoator just like comedians attempting to test free speech and say what is on our minds. He can be very useful but should be less mainstream more to bring up topics and help agitate the regressive. I don’t really want to to this one more as it has been done to death.

      Now into the meat of the hit piece, So right away every conservative, especially the ones previously mentioned, are far right. And the author goes for total lunacy calling out free speech supporters:

      “And yet, some of the staunchest free speech advocates see no conflict in using that right to call for limits on the liberty of others, like those who want to marry someone of the same sex, to use the washroom that reflects their gender as they define it, to cover their hair as religious observance, or to determine what goes on in their own uterus.”

    • The author clearly cannot make any distinction between ACTIONS and WORDS. For example for many conservatives (not all but many) abortion is killing a child so you saying abortion should be legal that is WORDS voicing an opinion. A person taking a vacuum to a fetus or an ice pick to the cerebellum is an ACTION. Just like you can joke about dead babies (if that’s your thing) but killing babies is still a crime.

      Same sex marriage honestly (IMO) it should not be the governments place to ‘marry’ people if you want to get married get yourself married if you want to get married in a church they can say no if you want a gay monkey to marry you have at it I don’t give a. If your religious get married in a church if not why do you care if an imaginary being (in your opinion) marries you? The author sounds like she needs the world to bend around her will.

    • Gender I will call you by what ever gender you look like to me if i make a mistake that’s partly my fault but I don’t care if you don’t like it don’t be my friend. If we are choosing pronouns I would like to be named Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men (claimant) Lady Regnant of the Seven Kingdoms (claimant) Protector of the Realm (claimant) Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea Breaker of Chains Mother of Dragons Queen of Meereen (formerly) and would expect to be referred to as that before talking to me :).
      Final point on this because I have done it to death, if you are 14 why aren’t you 64?

      Yes religion because not everyone wants to be a depressed atheist (cover their hair??? nice subtle swipe at the puritans you so emulate. Furthermore did you just say that we hate religion is by your logic is Islam not a religion.

    • Criticize comedians all you want but the human rights tribunal is not criticizing its censorship via economic penalties. If a make a bad joke stop going to my show tell all your friends but attempting to get me fired or thrown in jail keep telling yourself its not censorship.

      Yes there are reasonable limits on what people can say and although courts have recently tried to say that ‘hate speech’ is not free speech they are abhorrently wrong. Hateful speech is still free speech until it calls for a violence. Knowing that your micro-aggression course taught you that you have to everything you do not like is a micro-aggression and therefore you must respond with aggression. So I tell you you are an idiot you punch me in the face and then I ask you to look up the term fascist. Clearly these micro-aggression snowflakes need to work in customer service for a bit to learn the just because people are awful creatures and need to express those ideas to sort out the good ideas from the awful instincts.

    • Screw your etiquette Kay’s comments were in regards to M103 you know the knee-jerk reaction. So are you saying if someone experience some tragedy they are now the expert? Are victims of rape experts at catching rapist? Or why do we not let doctors operate on their children? There is actually a strong argument to be made that people that are victims should not make policies because they are too emotional. Not painting as the victim you victim seeking loon, say it with me just because you always want to be the victim doesn’t mean everyone else wants to. Emotional reactionary leads to tyrannical polices from busybodies trying to provide answers they do not have.

    • Here is where you attempt to use correlation to assert there is a causation between money and motive. Fake news. Should you get paid to write your article? Why not you put effort into, I’m sure lots of people have read it (I’ve had a good chuckle from it). Why should they not get paid for their work? If your answer comes down to because I don’t like it or I disagree with them then tough. If there is a market for them to make money and they are not hurting anyone (and they ARE NOT HURTING ANYONE by speaking) then why should they not get paid.

      It just sounds like you are scared or jealous or both. These people have worked hard and are very well spoken after years of practice and are managing to gather a large audience of people willing to pay for their work/service. I say scared because you and your colleagues (Mainstream Media) are losing your strangle hold on ideas. And you only have yourself to blame you attempted to regulate everything and now it is blowing up in your face. Jealous because it sounds like you wish you could reach as many people as Milo and Dr. Peterson reach with their talks or videos. Again if you disagree tough that is the way it is.

    • Am I happy that Iqra Khalid is receiving death threats NO! And if saying for people to stop doing this stupid thing helps then I will say stop sending death threats and rape threats idiots. If you want to complain be reasonable as treating people is a way to guarantee that you have lost the argument threaten to kill or rape them.

      Yes we should have discussion that is the best thing said in this article. However it is of course followed by a but. The loudest voices likely due to the fact that many people agree that Canada has become absurdly concerned with policing ideas and speech. The author then goes on to make bullying accusations (seemingly unaware of her position of power as part of the MSM could be seen as a bully pulpit).

  2. Is Charlie Hebdo islamophobic? Is The Satanic Verses?

    That is the problem with vague virtue signalling motions like M-103.

    • Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine.

      Salmon Rushdie is a Muslim.

  3. Big tent party with a three ring circus, and without Cluck, Cluck, Cluck O’Leary, we are now back to a bakers dozen for tomorrow. Miss Lietch and the rest of the Conservative party should learn to speak french before they start defending free speech, because if you can’t speak french, than how would you know whether your speaking free speech, in french?

    • Good point. Genuinely made me laugh out loud!

    • parlez-vous francais?

      • Kek Kek

  4. The author says the M103 is a motion with no effect but conveniently does not mention M103 if passed, is to be referred to the Heritage committee of the House of Commons to study the issue of Islamophobia, whatever that means and come up with recommendations. So it is far more than this author says it is.

    • It’s already inn the Charter of Freedoms……keep up

      • Then why introduce M103 in the first place? Is it just to stir debate and arouse sympathy for a particular minority or laying the groundwork for a more restrictive Hate Speech law? Those who ask this question are immediately criticized by the SJWs – so much for reasoned dialog.

    • That would be referred to the … Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (to) undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,…

      So not to study the issue of Islamophobia, but the issue of systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.

      They are arguing about words, so why not be precise!

    • Oh, and by the way, if M-103 is passed, it is still up to the government to decide whether or not to refer this to Committee. This is not a government-sponsored motion. It is a motion tabled by a backbencher, therefore not binding. The government can ignore the result of the vote.

      So the author is right. You are wrong.

      Though I do think that the government would likely put this to the Heritage committee.

      • But the government in question is a Liberal majority. The Liberal party has an extremely cozy relationship with Muslim advocacy/lobbying groups, so it’s no real question which way they’re going to go. Trudeau already tipped his hand at the end goal for this motion:

        “Trudeau said the motion aims to address the fact there is a community that is “particularly vulnerable these days to intolerance and discrimination.”

        “You’re not allowed to call ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theatre and call that free speech,” Trudeau said.

        “That endangers our community. And as we saw 10 days ago in Quebec City, there are other things that can endanger our communities. And we need to stand strongly and firmly against that.”

        Seeing as how we already have hate speech laws on the book, it’s pretty obvious that he’s referring to some sort of further restrictions on free expression. Islam simply can’t take criticism very well, and seeing as how Islamist groups have such a powerful influence with the Liberal party it’s obvious what the end goal here is.

  5. From a Canadian
    l will no longer stand quietly by and let Radical Islam put down roots in my Canada…
    l will resist their attempt to take away my free speech
    l look at Greece
    l look at Italy
    l look at Germany
    l look at France
    l look at England
    l think to myself why would l want this outdated farce in my Canada….
    why would l want Sharia Law in my Canada…
    why would l want no go zones in my Canada…
    why on earth would someone even consider this in this day and age
    Why should Canadian women cower in fear that Sharia Law might gain roots in Canada
    lm guessing that politicians have gotten so desperate for votes their now willing to sell out ordinary Canadians and their values for a few votes no mater where or how they get them
    lm all for responsible immigration….
    This push to fill my Canada with Muslims is not responsible immigration !!
    when they pull up to the Canadian Border in a taxi only to be directed by US Customs where to go and cross illegally into Canada l can only shake my head in disbelief
    Why should we take these folks in when they break the law to get into Canada trying to jump the queue that other folks have waited years to get in….
    L think a wise idea would to be to slow down on the Islamic immigration into Canada until we see how Greece,Italy,France and England work out.
    Gotta be honest here…dosnt seem to be working out to well over there folks…am hoping Canadians are smarter than l give them credit for at this point
    This is your future folks…choose wisely
    l will no longer stand by quietly on the sidelines and see my Canada given away for a few simple votes
    l will engage my family
    l will engage my friends
    l will engage my coworkers
    l will ask them to also engage thier own familys…thier own friends and thier coworkers as well
    l will not go quietly into that dark muslim night….

    A Canadian

      • YOU forgot you’re an adult.

    • You forgot your fake Laurier quote this time.

    • Why on earth should Canadian women cower in fear that sharia Law might take roots in Canada? Muslims don’t want sharia law. They were the most vocal group opposing it which lead to the end of the acceptance of religious arbitration in Ontario. If it were not for these muslims we would still be cowering under the Vatican law and the Hebraic law rather than the common law….

      • WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
        Can you tell me how or when this took place?
        Vatican Law Hebraic law? I don’t recall my grandparents or parents cowering under either of these.
        Or can you tell me what you are on, I want to avoid it?

  6. You had better pay more attention to this issue and think about it more than instead passing it off as paranoia. There is no question that political correctness is taking hold of our discussions and there is a huge backlash.

    I will once again provide a prime example. The Jian Ghomeshi trial. The media had this guy condemned to spending his life in jail for sexually assaulting these women. The guy is deplorable but he never sexually assaulted anyone and that was proven in court. What he did was assault women. There is a difference. But we could never discuss this issue rationally in the media because if you were to make any comment about this you would be immediately labeled as a misogynist. Even now it is portrayed that ghomeshi was let off on a technicality or that the system is stacked against women. But this censorship based on outrage will never solve any of the problems. All it does is further polarize people and maybe that is what the radical left really wants to combat the radical right.

  7. Free speech is not under attack. Hate speech is.

    Every individual is free to criticize and comment on aspects of society. But, and there is a huge but there, when you are a public figure that expresses speech that is filled with inaccurate information (i.e. immigrants are dangerous) or filled with hate speech (i.e. mexican’s are rapist – Trump), that is a whole different ball game. As a public figure you are “supposed” to represent the public. As in everyone. Not just your base. Not just people who agree with you. You represent everyone. If you don’t like that…don’t run for public office. Its simple.

    So when a public figure is spewing inaccurate messages that have a hint of hate…that needs to be addressed and stopped.

    If we don’t, I don’t see how we are any different than societies that treat woman poorly, or rule with an iron fist. What makes the “West” free, is the fact that people can come here and not be discriminated against, by authorities/public figures, for being different.

  8. Canada’s alt-right entire social platform is to be able to verbally abuse anyone without recourse.

    • YOU REALLY NAILED IT…. any one with a different view than you is filled with vile rage and want to abuse anyone and everyone without repercussions.
      Anyone with an alt-right view are all the same RIGHT?
      At least we can count on the political left filled with peace and love for all to correct all with different views with laws that call for prison and fines and maybe public stoning. That ought to shut them up!

  9. Hah. Can’t say anything or ‘they’ will redact. Best to keep quiet and laugh all the shit off. It’s getting too strange……..

    Encryption software but even then……

  10. “Free” speech comes with consequences. Financial and personal. Free speech all you want but don’t be surprised when you lose income, friends, and a livelihood by spouting off your ‘fear’ speech.

    I’ve noticed a shift in the public – people are confusing facts with opinions. One is not like the other. Just because you THINK everyone’s out to get you, doesn’t mean they are.

    I am also a Canadian and I rebut (with corrected spelling):
    l will no longer stand quietly by and let xenophobic fear-mongers put down ANY race, religion, gender, or hate as I don’t want those roots in my Canada
    l will resist all attempts to equate hate speech with free speech
    l look at England and hope the best for them
    l look at America and wish them love and peace and hope and strength
    l look at Germany and hope that love wins
    l look at France and mourn for the disenfranchised
    l think to myself why would l want this hatred and evil in my Canada
    Why would l think Sharia Law could appear in my Canada when it can’t, based on who we are as a group, with a strong Rights of Freedoms which stops all kinds of ‘foreign’ rules of government?
    Why would l think no go-zones could appear in my Canada when they can’t, based on our geography, our monetarily-strapped Armed Forces who can’t afford to do anything, and a government with better things on its mind than creating coups?
    Why on earth would someone even consider this in this day and age?
    Why should Canadian women continue to cower in fear when their reports of rape and violence are being dismissed on a daily basis? Gee, I don’t know… maybe because they’re not being taken seriously, and if you think wearing headscarves is the worst thing that could happen to them, pull your head out of your ass and think again.
    l’m guessing that politicians have gotten so desperate for votes they’re now willing to sell out ordinary Canadians and their values for a few votes no matter where or how they get them by spouting fear, hate, and divisiveness.
    I’m all for responsible immigration because I know that each potential Canadian has been vetted more than any ‘born-in-Canada’ person ever will be (unless they’re joining the Military).
    This push to fill my Canada with Muslims is because this group of people, regardless of religion, have had their homes bombed, their family killed, and no food for weeks on end. We with so much can spare enough for these displaced persons.
    When they come near to the Canadian Border in a taxi only to be directed by the cabbie where to go and cross illegally into Canada l can only shake my head in disbelief that they would actually walk for miles in clothing not meant for a harsh Canadian winter, just to be free to live without fear of being killed.
    Why shouldn’t we take these folks in when they break the law to get into Canada trying to jump the queue that other folks have waited years to get in, because they’re terrified the country that did take them in will shackle them and send them right back to the war zone they finally escaped from, even though they were innocents caught in the cross fire created by extremists on all sides of the argument?
    I think a wise idea would to be to keep up the Islamic immigration into Canada because we see how Greece, Italy, France and England have worked out with their alienation and hatred against people of different religions, and here we can offer them inclusion and peace which goes a long way to keeping all of us safe.
    Gotta be honest here…doesn’t seem to be working out too well over there folks…I believe though, Canadians are smarter than that.
    This is your future folks…choose wisely.
    l will no longer stand by quietly on the sidelines and see my Canada given away for a few simple votes.
    l will engage my family to help immigrants create a new home where they will love their new country.
    l will engage my friends to share their wealth.
    l will engage my coworkers to sponsor a family over the holidays.
    l will ask newcomers to also engage their own families…their own friends and their coworkers as well because with our help, they will find new friends, jobs, and safe havens for their families to live.
    l will not go quietly into that dark racist night.

  11. Human Right’s Tribunals are a joke here. You would think that Maclean’s would agree with that after being put through the ringer by Islamists a decade ago. But somewhere in that time frame they realized “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” I guess and now they’re enthusiastically calling for the erosion of free expression in Canada. Hell I’ve had comments deleted from this site where I didn’t use any vulgar language or anything, just pointed out facts that were inconvenient for the agenda the editorial staff were trying to push.

    Anyway this is a weak hit piece on Peterson. He doesn’t want to use made-up pronouns like “ze” and “zer” under the threat of government sanctions. Why would any Canadian have a problem with that? The modern left is all about groupthink and mob rule.