“Hitler was inspired by Islam,” according to Pamela Geller. As if this “alternative fact” was not outrageous enough, the woman dubbed by hate researchers as “the world’s top Islamophobe,” also told The New York Times that when Muslims “pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day.”

Mademoiselle anti-Muslim Hate has been invited by the Jewish Defence League of Canada (one of whose members was arrested for a hate inspired assault in Washington, D.C earlier this year) to affirm their views at the Canadian Christian College in Toronto. The event on Monday will also feature Canada’s own hate prophet “Rebel Commander” Ezra Levant.

Geller was banned from the U.K. in 2013 and some groups are calling on Ottawa to do the same. Canada has in the past barred for hate, national security and public safety reasons. National security poses its own constitutional and political concerns, while public safety is a double-edged sword. If we censor to prevent opponents from using violence, then what message are we sending to those (both on the right and the left) who wish to shut down contrary views?

Her defenders are quick to use free speech, but some appear to be selective. In fact, a few years ago, her host the JDL, successfully called on Ottawa to ban British MP George Galloway. The open letter urged the government to do “everything possible to keep this hater away.”

While other supporters minimize the hate she fuels.

The key is to strike a balance that protects expression, but also safeguard communitarian values — such as preventing social unrest, promoting societal inclusiveness, and upholding anti-harassment and anti-discrimination.

Limitations to speech may be based on the harm principle or the offence principle.

The former was advocated by John Stuart Mill, who argued for the fullest liberty in expression but nonetheless acknowledged that it can be limited to “prevent harm to others.”

To many this did not go far enough. While accepting that the penalties for harming someone should be greater, Joel Feinberg, for instance, argued that certain types of offensive speech must also be restricted.

Given the subjectivity as to what may be considered offensive, they conceded that a number of factors must be considered in weighing offence, including: “the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offence, and the general interest of the community at large.”

Geller has a long track record of hate and is a darling of the alt-right with more than 1.2 million fans on Facebook, many of whom are at her beck and call to harass and intimidate especially on social media.

Freedom of expression is alive and well in Canada, but there is no carte blanche. We have libel laws and censorship of various forms in keeping with “community standards.” Moreover, criminal and human rights legislation also restricts speech in the interest of protecting minorities and maintaining harmony.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code proscribes statements that incite or promote hate. Convictions have been fewand far between because of the requirement of specific intent and consent of the Attorney General, but it has withstood constitutional challenges.

Subsection 319(1) makes it an offence to incite “hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.”

The second and more relevant offence is set out in subsection 319(2) which makes it an offence to “communicate statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group …” The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Keegstra that wilful blindness (“knew or strongly suspected”) as to the consequences of the statements is sufficient.

Geller has made a profession out of vilifying and demonizing Muslims. She believes a Muslim dangerous per se. In fact, after a broad swath of Muslims protested her “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” in 2015, she told the press that this was “your everyday, run of the mill moderates praising mind-numbing savagery.”

She has defended the 2011 actions of Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people, some as young as 14, as targeting future leaders who were allowing Muslim rapists into the country. Not surprisingly, the alt-right terrorist praised her in his Manifesto.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Geller is not the champion of free speech. Her hate has moved from the realm of expressive activity to promoting harm, harassment, and possibly even violence. She is actually sacrificing many other values and principles we cherish at the altar of free speech.

Faisal Kutty is counsel to KSM Law, an associate professor at Valparaiso University Law School in Indiana and an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. @faisalkutty.