Canadians are tough enough and confident enough in our own values to listen to the likes of Steve Bannon. We need not fear that our intellectual integrity or our social fabric are so fragile as to be threatened by having him voice his views on our soil.

For that reason, if for no other, there’s no good reason to cancel the Munk Debate scheduled for Friday evening in Toronto, where Bannon will face off against conservative commentator David Frum on the issue of populism.

Organizers of the debate have been under pressure to scrap the event, on the grounds that giving Bannon a podium will give him an opportunity to spread his views on why economic nationalism and right-wing populism are on the rise around the world.

Bannon is, after all, a former senior counsellor to Donald Trump. He was a key architect of Trump’s rise to the White House and a theorist of the new populism, which is on the march from Europe to the Philippines to (most recently) Brazil. More darkly, he’s accused of being a straight-out white nationalist — something he himself denies.

So it’s no surprise in these nervous times that various groups have called on debate organizers to cancel. Their argument is that Bannon’s views are so noxious that they should not be “normalized” by a respectable organization. The Ontario and federal New Democrats have joined that call, although NDP MP Nathan Cullen rather undermined his own argument by saying he trusts that Canadians will reject Bannonism. On that point he’s quite right.

There’s no debate that Bannon’s views are antithetical to those of most Canadians, and simply retrograde on their face. We’ve spoken out countless times against the destructive economic nationalism of the Trump administration, the faux populism that goes along with it, and the divisive rhetoric that has done so much to create a climate in which hate can take root. All this can be laid at the feet of Bannon.

But is banning Bannon the right thing to do? In deciding that, it’s important to be clear on what’s involved.

To begin with, this is not, strictly speaking, an issue of free speech as such. No one is seriously suggesting that the government forbid Bannon from entering the country, or that authorities should intervene to prevent the debate from going ahead. The Munk Debates are free to invite him and Bannon is free to speak; likewise, those who oppose him are free to denounce his views and demonstrate against his presence. Free speech does not mean speech without consequences or push-back.

Nor does free speech imply a right to an audience. It was clearly a choice by the Munk organizers to invite Bannon, and one can question the wisdom of that. Is this the best way to encourage debate on populism at this time?

They could not help but know that Bannon is a lightning rod, and the decision to feature him can only be seen as a kind of intellectual clickbait, a way of courting attention for what is generally a tame exchange staged for the benefit of an audience well-heeled enough to pony up $200 a ticket. In that, at least, they have obviously succeeded.

But now that Bannon has been invited, disinviting him would be both wrong and counter-productive.

It would be wrong because we need to hear directly from people like Bannon in a context where their views can be subjected to rigorous examination. He isn’t coming to be honoured or celebrated. He’s coming to be challenged, and that should be welcomed, not feared.

The Economist magazine faced criticism very similar to that being directed at the Munk organizers when it included Bannon in a recent forum. Its editor, Zanny Minton Beddoes, defended its decision this way: “The future of open societies will not be secured by like-minded people speaking to each other in an echo chamber, but by subjecting ideas and individuals from all sides to rigorous questioning and debate.” That puts it well.

It would also be wrong to exclude Bannon for the very reason that, like it or not, his way of thinking is becoming more influential. Attempting to quarantine him intellectually, or lump him in with discredited racist fringe elements like the KKK, is pointless. We have to understand the rise of the new populism, if only to better combat it. Why not hear from one of its principal exponents?

At the same time, attempting to “deplatform” Bannon would only play out in his favour. For one thing, it’s clearly impossible to deny anyone a way to spread his ideas in the age of the internet. For another, it would simply reinforce the populist narrative that supposed intellectual “outsiders” like Bannon are being excluded and silenced by “elites” who refuse even to hear them out.

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

Far better to deny Bannon the satisfaction of being able to claim he’s being “censored” by a bunch of Canadians too nervous or too fearful to let him speak. Far better to encourage the widest possible exchange of ideas, all the while making sure we expose bad and dangerous ideas for what they are. Protecting free speech comes with a responsibility to counter its abuses.

Above all, let’s have the confidence to believe in ourselves and our values. They are certainly strong enough to withstand a visit from Steve Bannon.

Read more about: