Ozlem Sensoy: Free speech is not for YOU!

The Beating of Reginald Denny:  Don't worry, he's white.

(Opening Caveat:  I don't like Ann Coulter.  I think she is either a simple-minded ignoramus, or, more likely, a side-show huckster who just likes saying stupid things to stir up controversy, and, in the bargain, make herself more money.)

Sometimes, the best way to make a point is to allow those who oppose your opinions to simply articulate theirs.  To allow them a pulpit to demonstrate, clearly and loudly, just how wrong they are.

So.

In response to why the University of Ottawa has embarrassed themselves and the rest of our country by not allowing THEIR GUEST, Ann Coulter, to even speak, I turn not to Ann Coulter, or Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, but to the Vancouver Sun and its guest commentator, Ozlem Sensoy.

Ozlem Sensoy is assistant professor in the faculty of education at Simon Fraser University, wrote a column in the Vancouver Sun justifying why Ann Coulter was, in her opinion, quite properly denied the right to speak.

Unlike some, I very much welcome the free expression of ideas contrary to my own, even when they are ignorant and small-minded.

So, please, take a moment to follow the link and read the article.  I would like anyone reading my thoughts to assure that I have not taken Ozlem out of context or misstating his premise, which, essentially, is this:

Free speech for people like YOU should not be protected.

Free speech for people like ME, should.

Follow her argument so far?

Ok.  So I over-simplify.

The opinion of Ms. Sensoy is that because the dominant society already holds the advantage over those who struggle against it, that speech which perpetuates that dominance should not be subject to the same protection as speech which works to erode that dominance.

As Sensoy states:

The "isms" words (racism, sexism, anti-semitism) refer to power relationships that are historic and embedded, and these relationships do not flip back and forth. The same groups that have historically held power in the U.S. and Canada continue to do so.

I see.

So, her argument goes, that if speech is seeking to "affirm" inappropriate societal attitudes, what Sensoy refers to as her "isms", then it is undeserving of being allowed a platform.  Lest I be alleged to be exaggerating his point, I will quote her directly:

Perhaps we should have a discussion about the degree to which we experience and foster "free speech" in the West.


Whether it's humorous "jokes" about Muslims taking flying carpets instead of airplanes, or "real" remarks calling for the deaths of abortion doctors and condemning gays and lesbians, all speech is not free, neutral and deserving of utterance. You can't just say whatever the hell you want.

The old "yelling firehouse in a crowded theatre" response.  Problem, however, is it confuses direct harm with indirect harm.. which so much of modern progressive thought does. There is a world of difference between asking people to kill an abortion doctor (or a Democratic member of congress) and telling stupid racist jokes.  There is a line - but that line is not "where I say it should be."

What Ozlem ignores is the same reality that she complains about.

That supposed "moral authority" cannot equal "right".

To illustrate, take the example of certain communities in the U.S., which prohibited speech which, in their opinion, incited violence against others.  Those people, in their opinion, sought to stand firm against their oppressors, and sought to restrict speech and demonstrations that they felt sought to affirm the power of the "dominant society" to marginalize themselves and their culture.

In Alabama.

In the 1960's.

Resulting in the arrests of non-violent protestors in Birmingham in 1963, including the arrest of one Martin Luther King, Jr., who wrote his famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a result.  In King's letter he writes about the necessity of speaking clearly, but peacefully, against those things which he so strongly fought against.  King at no point suggests that those who oppose him should be muzzled - only that his right to speak, to protest, should prevail - even in the face of laws which say otherwise.

Sensoy writes as if her judgments are beyond reproach - and perhaps her motivations are.  However, when addressing such an important and fundamentally necessary component of a free society as "free speech",  we cannot leave its protection to the whims of the degree to which the dominant society believes they are worthwhile or seeking to align with "proper" goals for groups that "they" think are being oppressed.

To use a more obvious analogy - if an innocent black man is beaten because of his race, it is no less offensive for an innocent white man to be beaten because of his.
 
The right to speak cannot depend upon the caprice of some amorphous moral judgment about "rightness".
 
Were that the case, Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter may never have been written, and his "Dream" may never have been shared.