We do not often give it much of our attention. Someone we know invokes a racial stereotype, says something sexist, or denies a scientific fact, and is met by our exaggerated shock, perhaps laughter, and a mild admonishment. A common reply to such an admonishment is, “I am entitled to my opinion,” as indeed they are.
Except when they are not.
So let us examine why the statement usually shuts down any further thought, let alone discussion.
If we dissect the response “I am entitled to my opinion,” two aspects in particular stand out. The first being, “I” and “my.” Those of us living in societies descended from the Western European tradition of democracy are highly oriented toward individualism. Our entitlements as individuals often come before our responsibilities as community members. This leads intrinsically to the “entitled” part. Consider that we are perhaps too entitled in the depth of our attachment to certain opinions.
Still, saying that a thought should not be spoken feels oppressive. No one appreciates being told to keep quiet. An instinctual rebellion is engaged within people the moment that behaviour or language is ostensibly imposed. All things considered, no one wants to be seen as the language police either, the moral authoritarian imposing their will upon others. It is this perception that allows many opinions to go unchecked and unchallenged long after any value or validity has been exhausted.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are foundational to democracy, arising as fundamental factors in the constraint of state power. Open political debate, artistic expression, and freedom of the press are impossible without them. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly protects individuals from discrimination and hate speech, while concurrently securing the right of citizens to openly criticize public institutions and hold them accountable. All democracies guarantee such protections, though with widely varying interpretations. In the United States, the First Amendment is often successfully invoked as an entitlement to say any hateful thing about anyone. If it cannot be proven true, it cannot be proven entirely untrue, either.
One reason for the dissonance between the protection of rights and the promotion of freedoms is the inherent difficulty of proving hate under the law. Hate speech must demonstrably lead to violence, or the imminent threat of violence, leaving a lot of space to wriggle out of such an accusation. But this considers physical violence alone, failing to address the subtleties of structural violence. If legal interpretations of hate speech were to include the language of oppression directed toward some societal groups, the liberties landscape might look very different.
A current, contentious appeal to freedom of speech in Canada comes from Jordon Peterson. A University of Toronto psychology professor, Peterson gained a significant following through his YouTube channel and podcasts by repeatedly declaring his entitlement to refuse the use of preferred pronouns addressing transgender and nonbinary people. In reactionary claims made against Bill C-16 – the law enforcing protections for gender expression and gender identity under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code – Peterson determined the bill compelled speech and criminalized the incorrect usage of gender pronouns.
Peterson’s over-simplified assertions fail to appreciate the vigorous requirements of law. His rally against political correctness further neglects to identify the ways in which societal norms also compel self-censorship in positive ways, rendering terminology once commonly accepted in the past as demeaning and offensive in the present. Most importantly, Peterson confuses the transient inconvenience of having to learn different pronouns with an entitlement to be disrespectful and insensitive. His defensive insistence contributes nothing toward a meaningful discussion, except in revealing a pattern of privilege where the exclusive interest of a few is superior to the fundamental dignity of others.
Politic means sensible or wise. When we resist the politically correct, we resist what wisdom and sensibility tell us is true. As we fight for falsehood in North America, the government of India is blocking social media posts critical of its response to the latest wave of the COVID pandemic. The state is additionally placing limits upon the press, which includes reporting on the dire shortage of oxygen for patients, lack of hospital beds, and any other shortcomings of the Indian government. This is the kind of situation where appeals made to freedom of speech and freedom of expression truly matter. These are the rights worthy of our attention, and our protection. Opinions otherwise qualified as entitled recommend the exercise of a different right. The right to remain silent.
- Karen D. Godbout is an M.A. student at Royal Roads University.
