The Canadian Constitution Foundation reported today that “the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) convened yesterday to receive testimony from scholars and experts. The CPCCA is a non-partisan group of parliamentarians whose aim is to combat the global resurgence of anti-Semitism. Karen Selick, Litigation Director with the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), was invited to give testimony to the committee yesterday morning. Ms. Selick commented, “Censorship is often seen as the solution to bigotry, but that’s a false perception. Once the citizenry gives the state the power to control speech, the state can run roughshod over everyone – including those it was supposed to protect.”
Click here to read Karen Selick’s prepared remarks to the committee.
Here is one of the excellent points Ms. Selick made:
2. Subsidize Anything and More Will Be Produced – Including Hurt Feelings
What we really need to do in this country is to revive the attitude that prevailed when I was a child: “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.”
Like many of the witnesses appearing before this Committee, I am Jewish by birth. I am perhaps a bit different from most in that I rejected religion entirely in my late teens, so today I am an atheist.
But one of the other things that may set me apart is that my reactions toward anti-Semitic incidents seems to be different from that of my fellow Jews – or at least, if we believe the Supreme Court of Canada on this subject.
In a 1990 case called Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor1, the Supreme Court said: “…individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological distress, the damaging consequences including a loss of self-esteem…”.
The subject arose again in a 1996 case called Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 152. The Supreme Court said that when Jewish children hear anti-Semitic remarks in a school, they are: “… likely to feel isolated and suffer a loss of self-esteem on the basis of their Judaism.”
Frankly, I don’t get this. If I hear someone making bigoted remarks about me, I don’t conclude that HE’S right, and there’s something wrong with ME. I conclude that there’s something wrong with HIM, because it’s irrational for him to condemn me without knowing anything about me except my ethnic origins.
So I don’t suffer any loss of self-esteem, or feeling of inferiority, from someone else’s ignorant and irrational behaviour. And I can’t imagine why anyone else would, either.
Over the past few decades, Canada has developed a culture of thin-skinned hypersensitivity. We reward people, quite literally, for being offended – or at least for saying they’re offended – by letting them make claims to so-called “human rights commissions”. Sometimes, they are awarded tens of thousands of dollars to “compensate” them. Some of them are not necessarily in it for the money, but rather for the attention. They want their 15 minutes of fame.
An economist friend of mine likes to quote this economic law: “Subsidize anything and more of it will be produced.” Reward people to produce corn, and more corn will be produced. Reward them to produce children, as we do with baby bonuses, and more children will be produced. Reward people to be offended – whether with money or with public outpourings of concern – and more “offendedness” will be produced.
Now, I’m not saying that anti-Semitic statements have no impact on me at all. On the contrary, hearing such statements makes me realize that there is a need for caution, because anyone who is so irrational may become violent. But violence is already illegal, whether the victim is Jewish or not. The Criminal Code already protects all of us from violence, so there is no need for specific legislation directed at protecting Jews in their persona as Jews. To the extent that laws can ever be effective in preventing violence, I’m already protected.
I spent 24 years as a divorce lawyer, and I frequently had clients say to me, “I want you to get me a restraining order. I’m afraid my spouse is going to kill me.” And I would say to them, “It’s already illegal for your spouse to kill you. Do you really think that if your spouse is willing to break the law against a very serious crime like murder, that he or she is going to be stopped by the fact that it’s also illegal to commit the minor crime of breaching a restraining order?”
The same reasoning applies here. It’s already illegal for people to vandalize my property, or to physically attack me. If they are willing to break those laws – which at root are the things we want to be protected against – do we really think they won’t also be willing to break laws against hating people on the basis of race? In my view, we might as well let the bigots identify themselves, so we can be forewarned in our dealings with them on a case-by-case basis.
I don’t want the law to shut them up, because I don’t want those people seething inwardly behind a mask of civility, secretly believing that all their prejudices have been corroborated because the “Jewish conspiracy” has coerced them into silence. I want them out in the open where I can identify them. Because depending on what each individual anti-Semite is like, my reaction will vary. If I think they are physically dangerous, I want to be able to identify them in case I see them approaching my home or workplace. If I think there is any possibility that they can be shamed out of their bigoted beliefs, I may want to engage them in open debate, or organize a boycott of them and their businesses. If I think they are simply ignorant people who have no personal experience of Jews and have adopted anti-Semitic beliefs because they’ve heard them expressed in their families, for instance, I may want to engage with them in a friendly way and demonstrate to them that what they’ve been taught is inaccurate.
I DO want to be protected from the sticks and stones – from the physical violence which would be illegal whether I were Jewish or not. But that’s where I draw the line: between speech and violent acts. Speech is permissible. Violent acts are not.
Click here to read Karen Selick’s prepared remarks to the committee.
Public date: November 24th, 2009Categories: News
Tags: anti-semitism, Canadian Constitution Foundation, discrimination, Free Speech, hate crime, Karen Selick, racism
