March 03, 2017

The Two Biggest Reasons My Generation Hates Free Speech

Jay FayzaRebel Columnist
 

I’m a free speech absolutist. That means, I believe in the freedom of expression, association, and, of course, speech for anyone and any idea. 

There are certain limitations I’d place, like defamatory speech that leads to individuals suffering severe economic burdens. Those economic burdens would have to be proven in court, of course. But besides that, I think you should have the right to say what you want to say to anyone, at all.

If you want to call me a "nigger," I will defend your right to say that.

If you don’t want to serve me food because I’m black, I will defend your right to do that in your private business.

Who cares if I’m offended? That doesn’t mean what you’re saying is wrong.

And that doesn’t mean I should work to silence you.

But sadly, that’s the kind of world we live in.

According to the Pew Research Centre, up to 40 per cent of young people think it’s ok to limit speech that is offensive to minorities. There are have been polling data that goes all the way up to 50 per cent.

If you still don’t believe me, I’ll show you a clip of me talking about this to normal young Canadian university students.

Ironically, back in the 1960s, it was young people who lead the free speech movement. Now, they turn their backs on what others fought for.

Why? It was the universities, especially the humanities and social sciences, that taught them to think this way about free speech. Specifically, through the prisms of postmodernism and Marxism. WATCH as I explain.

I used to be proud in my generation. Now, I can’t be anymore. We’re no longer tolerant. We’re no longer an accepting generation.

Instead, we’re a generation of active nihilists driven mad by good-for-nothing identity politics.

 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-03-07 20:42:18 -0500
@chris Marit

Typical leftist. You want the government to decide what people can and can’t say.
You want to give up freedom for “civility”.
Mao wanted to do that too.
commented 2017-03-07 17:32:09 -0500
@chris Marit…as one of the founding members of MGTOW I get some humdinger jokes in my e-mail….this one depicts a PUA (pick up artist…an aspect of the men’s movement I do not endorse nor agree with but I understand why contemporary men do it)…he is on a first date from a dating/hookup site. The girl is hot and he does not want to blow it…she says “I am a socialist” ….he replies…“Hey I don’t know much about economics either”……when it comes to this subject matter…one way or another there is “bum kissing” involved….:-)
commented 2017-03-07 17:05:43 -0500
@glenn Craig

You seem to have completely misunderstood me and perhaps also misconstrued me as a radical leftist. When I read what you wrote, you seem to be making my point: there is a very wide lattitude for free speech in Canada, in spite of the fact that the freedom of speech is not absolute. Your examples reinforce this point quite well.

Now as far as your points on the court, again we are in agreement that the courts don’t make laws – I think I made this point specifically.

Finally, let’s address your wager; it seems that either outcome would involve bum kissing – which is not really why I participate in forums that host political debate, so I will decline.
commented 2017-03-07 14:14:37 -0500
@chris Marit…I would like to further expand that the CBC and other media gives very misleading reports on this subject.

The reason why the SCC upheld the validity of Section 13 was because it was not criminal code involving criminal code penalties. Criminal code would allow truth and fair comment as well as procedural considerations not necessary in an act of Parliament.

Ernst Zundel WAS NOT convicted of hate speech in Canada…..he was deported to Germany on an immigration matter where the hate speech laws are very stringent particularly regarding Jews. If fact the cahrge of “spreading false news” led to the Supreme Court of Canada striking down the law on “spreading false news” as being unconstitutional….which is a good thing for the CBC and the MSM.

And just to add some spice to what I previously said about feminists….I HATE THEM RANCOUROUSLY…I hate them the way a Jew would hate the Gestapo and for pretty much the same reasons…Justin Trudeau and his feminist groupies can bloody well seethe over what I just said because there isn’t a damn thing they can do about it.

Any questions Chris? Oh BTW…I also know why the CJC stopped chasing Ukrainian prison guards in Canada….Doug Christie told me.
commented 2017-03-07 13:43:30 -0500
@chris Marit…..A charge of hate speech can only be laid with the approval of the Attorney General of Canada…which is why there is always a delay when the police say they are investigating it. It is nothing like the “hate speech” codes of universities.

Prior to Section 13 of the Human Rights Act being struck down by parliament attempts were made to get it struck down by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK constitutionally fo PARLIAMENT THAT IS TO SAY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE SENATE to make such a law. The supreme court has no such power …never has…and never will.

There are MANY misconceptions on this topic….for instance preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit does not constitute hate speech…already been tested and ruled on. Calling a feminist a bitch or a lesbian with malignant penis envy…does not constitute “hate speech” …in fact Status of Women Canada ate humble pie on that one and threw the academic feminists who made cause over it under the bus and the court ruled that their policy proposal was highly unprofessional in spite of the academic high speech.

Virtually ALL of the hate speech charges that have stuck have been tendered complains of lawyers representing B’Nai Brith and the CJC….There have been the occassional "hate crime " add ons to an offence like burning a cross on a lawn…but a conviction for “hate speech” is no easy nor trivial matter. And the courts do not have power to create law in this matter.

You are free in Canada to hate whomever you please and you are free to say that you hate them. You are not free to advocate harm, violence, or genocide.

Now Chris Marit…I will make you a wager….show me one page or even one paragraph composed by a feminist that has anythin good to say about men and I will kowtow and kiss your ass…upon failure to do so you can kiss mine. If any woman or her writings ever said anything good about men that woman and those writings would not even be called or deemed to be “feminist”….feminists are the most boorish bunch of biggots this side of Johannesburg…don’t be obteuse and act like I am the only one who noticed.

I will make you a further wager that neither you nor any prosecution attorney in Canada could make a case of “hate speech” against me for what I just stated.
commented 2017-03-07 10:45:14 -0500
@tony Kott

You misunderstand me. The constitution of Cananda imposes reasonable limits on freedom of speech – and it is up to the courts to define and enforce these limits. In other words, anti-semetic speech might result in the perpetrator’s arrest, at which point a judge would review the specific content of the egregeous speech and rule in accordance with the constitution. I am not suggesting the courts make up the laws.

Also, I am making the point that there is no more virtue in having absolute free speech rights, as do our American counter-parts, versus the perfectly good system we have in place in Canada. Each approach has its short-comings. The thing is, I simply cannot remember the last time the Canadian government silenced somebody under this constitutional provision – can we count the time Prime Minister Jean Chretien choked out a protester at a Rememberance Day ceremony in Ottawa?
commented 2017-03-07 05:07:07 -0500
Chris Marit….. I am not a Canadian Constitutional expert, but I do believe that the Judiciary in Canada does not have the constitutional powers to create law (even thought the Supreme Court of Canada has tried to). I had always thought that it was the elected Members of Parliament that made the laws of Canada and the courts were to adjudicate said laws. If the Supreme Court decides a law is unconstitutional after a case is brought before the court then the law is sent back to Parliament for revision. So therefore the courts have no constitutional power to define law and apply it.
P.S. Glenn Craig I thought you would have been all over Chris Marit on his comment courts define what is hate speech or not as it seems to me by reading your previous comments on this site you have had your run ins with the courts. Please correct me if am wrong.
commented 2017-03-06 18:26:09 -0500
@kim Hanson….I was a free speech absolutist even back then and free speech did get cahallanged…but back then it was much easier to rally support. I remember Pierre Burton was one of my heros with his “you can’t say that” campaign. He got death threats when he said that he let his daughter have her privacy even with boyfriends in th rec room in his basement because at least he knew she was safer than in the back seat of a car in who knows where. I had friends who’s parents agreed and let me and my friends have an unchaparoned space to hang out.

The current level of speech control is unparalelled in history. Even citizens of Nazi Germany had more scope to question and criticize than we do.
commented 2017-03-06 09:11:05 -0500
@jeffrey Tighe

The question asked of students in the video: “do you think universities… should stamp out hateful speech?” There is no mention as to whether the government ought to change the constitution. You are taking inferences that are simply not stated by the author when you claim the story is about whether the government should alter the criminal code.

As far as who gets to define eggregious or hateful speech, the answer would be the courts, and whether it is any of my business…? As a citizen of Canada and one who takes their civic duty seriously, I have every right to expect your compliance with our laws – even the laws you do not agree with. One does not get to ‘opt out’ of certain laws that might be disagreeable to one’s politics.

I do understand the notion that free speech is best tested by the protection it affords unpopular ideas; I just don’t agree that Canadian-imposed limits interfere with anything short of extremist views, and I am prepared to make such a sacrifice for a little civility. Given your stated unconcern for the well-being of society, I am quite delighted that you and your opinions are choked by the yoke of state-censorship and I wish you the best of luck as you rage against the machine.
commented 2017-03-05 19:38:54 -0500
Believe it or not, we had free speech in the ‘60s and had had it for a very long time. So what do you mean youths led the free speech movement in the 60s? I was there. It was about free love and no more war. Don’t recall free speech being an issue.
commented 2017-03-05 15:46:04 -0500
Jay Fayza I have often wondered why some SJW has not condemned events like the Boston Marathon, the Daytona 500 and the Tour de France as “racism”. They are elitist, they do not promote equality and they celebrate a race.
commented 2017-03-05 00:22:28 -0500
Jay Fayza—another great straight-forward interviewing session. I hope CNN doesn’t grab you as they should be looking for neutral journalists that understand both sides.
Is it just me or are 4 of 5 female university students extremely dumb? As seen here, some are so stupid that they have to yell or scream to portray their views. I think they will be disappointed when they can’t support themselves with their Degree in Women’s Issues.
commented 2017-03-04 18:08:10 -0500
Betina Dunn does your restriction also apply to the liberal media who said the recent bomb threats were done by a white supremacist or a conservative group that does not exist? Oh don’t bother , i already know your answer , left wing bigotry is just fine.
commented 2017-03-04 18:05:28 -0500
Betina Dunn we are also tired of the lefts whining and bullshit,so can we silence you? Or is it only going to be applied with your discretion because you are so wise and enlightened? And what bigotry?
commented 2017-03-04 17:57:01 -0500
@Chris Marit
The constitution will allow the government to remove hate speech laws from the criminal code. And the government should do so. That is what was being asked of the citizens in the video.
Hate is not a crime, so why should spreading it be a crime?

And as for egregious and unproductive speech, who gets to define what is or isn’t in those categories? And why is it any of your or the government’s business if I want to partake in either?

And why is it the government’s business if someone wants to teach falsehoods (other than perhaps a hired teacher, and that is a matter of competence)?

Your comment that society isn’t better off if people use racist terms shows that you clearly do not understand freedom of speech. That is a freedom for individuals to exercise, and quite frankly, I couldn’t give a rat’s behind if society is better off or not.

The test of whether you have freedom of speech or not is if people are allowed to say stupid and offensive things or not.

You sound like a collectivist drone.
commented 2017-03-04 11:03:49 -0500
Without freedom of speech there is no redress of grievance. All attempts at enforced civility have caused more conflict than they have cured.

@betina Dunn…..while you are up bitching make me a sandwich.
commented 2017-03-04 10:24:30 -0500
BETINA DUNNCE….Please take your several month break from the Rebel. In fact make it permanent. Next cab ride you take…sit in the front seat please.
commented 2017-03-04 10:17:20 -0500
A crucial distinction: whereas the author believes in absolute and unfettered free speech, the Canadian government does not. Section 1 of the Canadian constitution provides for limits to free speech when such limits are justified and reasonable. Therefor, by asking citizens whether they believe the government of Canada ought to end hate speech, the author is effectively asking the citizens whether the government ought to uphold the laws of our land. A more pointed question is whether the constitution should be amended to provided greater freedom of speech, regardless of the pitfalls normally associated with such rights.

In any event, I am not aware of Canadians having any limitations with regards to expressing dissent with the government and/or its policies, or engaging in any type of good-faith argument meant to advance one’s opinions. Historically, those few who have run afoul of this constitutional provision are guilty of aggregious and unproductive speech, like teaching holocaust denial to school children or other patently false ideas that have no place in factually-based discourse. To use the author’s own example, I do not support the ‘right’ to call another person ‘nigger’ – why are we better off as a society if people can be called racial epithets?
commented 2017-03-04 07:43:20 -0500
Betina Dunn commented
“You are completely wrong here.
We are more tolerant in so many ways, we just refuse to put up with bigoted, hurtful bullshit any longer.
You alt-right assholes should really stop it with your “free speech” whining.”

“More tolerant”?
Betina is delusional if she believes she is tolerant, her post clearly shows she is not tolerant.
commented 2017-03-04 01:36:34 -0500
Ace work on not using the nonsense term ‘cultural Marxism’, but still (it’s semantics) when you say ‘postmodernism’ you actually mean ‘post-structuralism’ (and structuralism, as ‘originally identified’ by E Kant). Otherwise spot on analysis.

But still, ‘postmodernism’? Come on kids. Let’s try to pick up the game just a little bit. :)
commented 2017-03-03 23:28:54 -0500
Jay your a very insightful guy. Wish there were a lot more people your age that were as well. As you grow older you’ll grow in wisdom even more. I grew up in the sixties and seventies and am glad I did. Although African Americans went threw a necessary hell to get equality, there was a lot of optimism. Today everything seems so negative and pessimistic. Freedom was the rallying cry. A very dark blindness has descended on the populace and it’s to hell with the consequences. Very shortsighted tunnel vision. I know every generation has thought they might be in the end times but except for a huge revival back to Christianity which brought us so much success, it’s hard not to think this is the beginning of the end. We know from bible prophecy what is coming but God in his mercy wants no one to perish and will extend the end as long as possible but He can only do so if he is asked. With the surge in resistance to all this demonic insanity obviously a lot of people are praying diligently but it will only be temporary. Satan is working overtime. There will be no middle ground.
commented 2017-03-03 22:34:09 -0500
Jay, would you like to go a little further next time? Ask them why students can’t just stand up for themselves? Ask them isn’t it a part of life? Why should the school that ’s preparing them for life be any different? Ask them who taught them such notions? If they ever considered their teachers were wrong? etc.
commented 2017-03-03 22:32:21 -0500
Someone has convinced these kids of this “safe space” notion, which of course, has now mushroomed into a huge (mushroom) cloud. And I understand, when the student says one should be able to attend school without harassment and go about their business, but we have laws for that, and putting down or standing up to those that act badly is a part of life. They were supposed to learn this in public school and the playground! Ahh yes, the playground. The place they took away the monkey bars and the Star Wars plastic swords and roughhousing.
commented 2017-03-03 22:20:52 -0500
DAN MANCUSO commented 2 hours ago
“Someone really does need to take them in hand and disabuse them of their silly notions…they’re not just cutting their own throats. "
Dan, someone will take them in hand and learn ‘em real good. They won’t have to cut their own throats the muslims will do it for them. Hard way to learn but some know no other way. As Johnny Cash sang:

I learned the Hard Way
The hard way taught me well
The hard way
Sure put me (this boy) through some hell
The hard way
Taught me how to tell
The right way from the wrong
And on which side I belong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ALK1Clwaag
commented 2017-03-03 21:38:29 -0500
Uh, I’m about the most anti-cultural marxist guy you’re likely to meet here in the little Orwellian paradise that the libs have spent decades creating and I have no pity for some black bloc/antifa type being beaten by cops or even being killed in self defence by a decent citizen. That’s just AWESOME! The more dead leftists, the better off our society These vermin are Fascists. To say, however , that freedom means the right to refuse to serve someone because of the colour of their skin is wrong and in my opinion is contrary to what being conservative means. I measure an individual’s worth by their culture and not their skin colour. If I deem a culture inferior because of OVERWHELMING evidence of it’s inadequacy I am judged as a racist. It doesn’t matter that many Afghan, Pakistani, Indian and other asian nationalities share a large part of their DNA with me. I’m letting down TEAM CANADA if I point out how FECKIN NS (Non-Serviceable) some economigrants are.
commented 2017-03-03 21:30:40 -0500
Good video. Really enjoyed it.
commented 2017-03-03 21:28:13 -0500
I’m not a proponent of hurtful language directed at others. The government should continue to resist insulting rhetoric and hate-speech on campuses or other taxpayer funded places. But real objective debate should be allowed.
That being said, I would prefer full-on free speech (which Jay is more-or-less espousing) than live in a society where you can’t say anything without negative ramifications, which is where we’re heading towards at break-neck speed.
commented 2017-03-03 20:38:07 -0500
I smell a grubby little Marxist on this page, who seems to have been dunned down. Poor thing.
commented 2017-03-03 20:36:26 -0500
Jay- From an old white guy , your top drawer. Thats an old way of saying your great! Keep up the great work.
Doug Heal