Protecting Freedoms in a Democratic Society 3rd Session, 37th Parliament, Volume 141, Issue 33 April 27, 2004 Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, I would like to draw your attention to the following statement from the noted U.S. philosopher, linguist and civil libertarian Noam Chomsky:   If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

Senate Chamber

Protecting freedoms in a democratic society does not mean defending only the voices that are pleasing and acceptable to us; protecting freedoms begins with the defence of those voices most despised and despicable. It is upon this principle that our free and democratic society is based and it is upon this principle that we, I submit, must govern. The trouble with fighting for human rights and freedoms is that it begins with the difficult task of opposing the oppressive laws that are first aimed at silencing those who hold opinions with which we disagree. We, as legislators — I again respectfully submit — must keep in mind these principles when considering legislation and make our decisions accordingly. Sometimes the path that seems to be the easiest and the most correct by limiting hateful speech will ultimately limit speech for all. As former British Lord Chief Justice Hailsham, late member of the House of Lords asserted: The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others, who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty. Honourable senators, I would encourage us all to keep these principles in mind today and tomorrow when we go through our orders of business. In this regard, I simply would remind senators of the following words in section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977. Section 2 says, in part: ...all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. The fundamental question is, honourable senators, do we prefer to live in a society that is so rigid and law-based that there is no room for diversity or flexibility, where no person can speak their mind and exercise their democratic freedoms? Or, would we rather live in a society that fosters diversity of opinion, allows freedom and liberty, but also leaves room for anticipated abuse as stated by Lord Hailsham?   I, for one, value my freedom, welcome diversity of opinion, willfully engage in open debate and discourse and would prefer a society that encourages differences of opinion under the true principles of democracy.   Link to Senate Debates for this date Return to Speeches Page