Re: Revisiting free speech debate on campus, Opinion Oct. 18

Revisiting free speech debate on campus, Opinion Oct. 18

After reading ideologically driven pieces by professional columnists for so long, the piece by professor David M. Haskell was like a breath of fresh air. The wave of political correctness, fueled by social media, is smothering free speech.

Canada is becoming like Albania of yonder years when people were made to change religious names to state-dictated names. Now in our times the crusade is to ban a word or an idea that offends the sensibilities of a person or group.

So change or remove the name of a sport or a people or book or remove it and fire professor Jordan Peterson for asserting his rights. By doing so we cannot erase history. History is not abstract. It is what actually happened, either good or bad. The only thing we can do it to change the conditions that we find repulsive and undesirable. That is hard work and cannot be accomplished by a simple process of changing nomenclature.

Free speech is the lifeblood of democracy. Let the debates and discussions flow and, learn to agree to disagree. It seems so hypocritical and phony to appear self-righteous by appearing as harbingers of reform without any substance.

India has been changing names of cities and landmarks, but it does not the change the fact of the rule of Muslims and British for centuries. In fact India has become richer by adopting their good and useful cultural and institutional aspects. The same can be done in Canada.

We can learn from native spirituality, aspects of their way of life, respect for nature and so many other things. Canada has been rich and prosperous for so long that we are losing touch with realities of life. We exploited others for our prosperity. Are we willing to give up all that we have gained and perhaps even helped native inhabitants in the process? Let us be at least honest and not so paternalistic.

Clarence McMullen, Richmond Hill

Lately the interpretation argued by each side of the controversy over free speech is to exclude the other side’s version of reality. However, this zero-sum game of exclusion reveals a misunderstanding of the all-inclusive nature of free speech.

John Milton was absolutely right – restricting speech is not necessary because “in a free and open encounter” truth will prevail. That’s why criticism of Jordan Peterson’s ideas should not focus on silencing his opinion but rather on increasing its circulation so that it becomes better known.

Public discussion of Peterson’s fixation on the idea that pronouns should be absolutely binary (only: “he,” “she,” and not “they”) is the best way to contradict it. The prevailing usage of “they” as a singular non-gender specific pronoun for 600 years by writers such as Chaucer and Shakespeare established it as a historical fact. Now “they” is used and accepted as standard usage by most print publishers.

That precedent evolved from free speech shows that it’s just a matter of time until the truth of civilized conversation will reflect the preferred personal pronoun of the speakers.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto

I rather doubt that any university never mind the University of Toronto is a paragon of free speech as these state-funded institutions are well known to not invite the likes of Ann Coulter to speak her mind at the University of Ottawa without restrictions. The same can be said for conservatives and liberals alike who would not permit topics like the Holocaust to be debated even though I would love to see the likes of Holocaust revisionists like Mark Weber, Robert Farisson and David Irving challenge the likes of National Post columnist Barbara Kay, former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and Bernie Farber of the Anti-Defamation League (see correction note below) in which the later resort to ad hominem tactics which Mark Weber rightly points out that his opponents resort to “name calling as a substitute for solid arguments.”

The gays lesbians and Muslims are also known to resort to these tactics as they are unable to debate their opponents in a civil and well organized debate led by a fair and neutral monitor.

While I never went to university, I do agree with Thomas Jefferson who said, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” and “I’ve never considered a difference of opinions in politics, philosophy and religion as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”

John Clubine, Etobicoke

Correction - October 31, 2016: Bernie Farber was the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress from 2005-2011 and is currently executive director of the Mosaic Institute. He was never worked for the Anti-Defamation League. See Bernie Farber's respose to above letter here.



Thank you for printing the article by Mr. Haskell. There is not enough exposure of the suppression of facts. It is time to give truth seekers the ability to express themselves instead of hate speech being directed at them. When evidence to support legislation or ideas is silenced by denying a voice against the facts by saying “we should [not] dignify this man in public debate” we will let perversion thrive. Those who are in minorities that want to be seen as normal have an identity crisis that should be addressed.

Bernice Van Hof, Aurora