In a free country, the public square should be accessible for everyone, not just for those who adhere to the “correct” or majority opinions. A private entity like a church or a business need not make space available for all comers, and can legitimately pick and choose. In contrast, a city cannot discriminate against the “wrong” opinions when regulating the use of public parks, conference centres, or the square in front of city hall.
In a free society, citizens get to decide for themselves what is true or false, or what is hateful or not hateful, without the government deciding on their behalf and then censoring the “wrong” perspective. Denying access to public places (paid for by all taxpayers, not just some) is one form of censorship. When everyone thinks alike, nobody thinks very much. The success of democracy and the progress of science desperately depend on public debate.
These basic principles of the free society seem to be completely lost on some municipal politicians and bureaucrats in Canada who have taken it upon themselves to “protect” people from the horrors of having the choice to attend—or not attend—a worship service led by American Christian singer Sean Feucht.
Ever keen to impose their unmatched virtue on everyone else, municipal government officials in several cities have sought to prevent Feucht from using taxpayer-funded public spaces.
Sean Feucht’s socially conservative views are shared by millions of Canadians. However, even if only 1 percent of Canadians agreed with him, that is irrelevant in a free country. Freedom of speech means nothing if it doesn’t protect speech that would otherwise be cancelled. The Charter protects not only the right of speakers to speak, but also the right of listeners to hear and consider all viewpoints. The Charter applies to everyone present on Canadian soil, not just Canadian citizens.
It’s unfortunate to see politicians use the slogan “inclusion” while excluding someone they disagree with from enjoying Charter freedoms.
Those who censor—or try to censor—opinions they disagree with are behaving just like the fascists did across Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The fascists hated democracy and the free society. They despised the irksome freedoms enjoyed by individuals, freedoms that stood in the way of bold and grand government projects. Like their counterparts from 90 years ago, today’s fascists are so convinced of the rightness of their own cause that they feel fully confident in cleansing the public square of opposing opinions.
However, this undisguised arrogance, fuelled by delusions of moral superiority, is actually less dangerous than censorship based on the pretext of “safety and security,” which Canadian cities are also invoking to ban Sean Feucht from the public square.
I’ve seen this “safety and security” movie dozens of times, when defending freedom of expression at Canada’s universities. Students espousing an unpopular minority opinion set up a display, host a speaker, or organize an event on campus. Loud and disruptive protesters threaten to shut down the event or display, and carry out their threats by using sheets and towels to cover messages they disagree with. They use bullhorns to shout down speakers. They engage in physical obstruction and blockading, which is blatant criminal conduct because Section 430 of the Criminal Code prohibits obstructing, interrupting, or interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.
In this way, Canadian universities give the proverbial “heckler’s veto” to anyone who threatens to break the law by disrupting, blockading, or interfering with an event or display on campus. Rather than charging and arresting the criminals, universities instead censor the students who espouse an unpopular view (for example, opposition to abortion). This blame-the-victim approach unfairly punishes students who have done nothing wrong, and who have every right to proclaim their unpopular opinion on campus. Universities reward those who threaten criminal conduct, and those who engage in it. Their intellectual dishonesty in refusing to deal with those who actually threaten safety on campus is truly disgusting.
Abbotsford and other cities have a choice. They can respect the Charter by upholding freedom of expression for the benefit of both speakers and listeners, and by enforcing the Criminal Code against those who disrupt, obstruct, or interfere with a concert or worship service. Or Abbotsford can imitate the disingenuous censorship tactics used by Canadian universities.
