Recent events in Canada, both legal and political, have underscored how complex our democratic ideals of free speech and free expression can be in a world faced with violence and threats of violence stemming from strongly held beliefs.

First, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code and the finding that two anti-gay pamphlets distributed by William Whatcott constituted hate speech.

The unanimous decision emphasized the harmful societal impact that hate speech can have: “Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.”

Whatcott promised to continue distributing such literature anyway, as an expression of his religious views: “I’ll likely put out another flyer articulating the Judeo-Christian viewpoint on homosexuality in my usual blunt and forthright manner.”

Free-speech advocates criticized the decision for placing limits on free expression, risking the creation of a chilling effect on public debate about controversial issues.

As if to underscore these concerns, Tom Flanagan, former chief of staff to Stephen Harper, lost his job as commentator on CBC’s Power and Politics and his advisory role with Alberta’s Wild Rose Party, among other affiliations, in the wake of his statements about child pornography made at the University of Lethbridge.

The controversy surrounded Flanagan’s assertion that viewing child pornography should not necessarily lead to imprisonment, suggesting that what was at issue was merely a “taste in pictures.” Critics rightly pointed out that such pictures are produced by others and that this production involves the exploitation and abuse of children — a clear harm to both the children and to society-at-large.

Taken together, these two events suggest that in Canada limits can be placed on certain freedoms, including expression of religious beliefs, when they single out certain groups for vilification and harm.

Limiting free speech in the interests of societal security is a highly contested issue in the area of counterterrorism and counter-radicalization.

Speech offences typically multiply when governments feel that society is under attack by dangerous ideas and ideologues. Subversion and sedition (calling for the violent overthrow of government) are the most common forms of speech offence. Prohibiting membership in certain organizations, such as terrorist groups, or advocating the use of violence for a particular political, social or religious cause are more recent examples.

The United Kingdom was criticized for reaching out to Salafist communities in its counter-terrorism Prevent program. The Cameron government reversed this policy, insisting that only “moderates” should be partners with the state.

Some have gone further, criticizing such outreach and related “faith-based” programs for privileging religious leaders over other kinds of experts, including secular ones. The economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has written: “In the downplaying of political and social identities as opposed to religious identity, it is civil society that has been the loser precisely at a time when there is a great need to strengthen it.”

A similar argument can be made for the newly created Office of Religious Freedom in the Department of Foreign Affairs, which appears to have privileged religion over other human rights.

While religion has been a force for good in human affairs, it also can be a tool of bigotry and repression, not only against believers of different faiths, but also against women, homosexuals and different sects within a particular religious tradition.

In the Middle East and North Africa, Sunni and Shiite Muslims use religious belief as a marker to distinguish political allegiance from dissent, much as Catholics and Protestants did during Europe’s Hundred Years’ War.

In Turkey, a Greek Orthodox seminary near Istanbul has been closed for years — a bone of contention with Christians. Now the Turkish government seems ready to do something about it, but is hesitating because it does not want to make a similar opening to its Muslim minorities. The Turkish prime minister recently called the huts that minority Alevis worship in mere “cultural centres” and is imposing a program of mosque-building in their villages, alienating and angering the community.

Many African countries still have anti-sodomy laws on their legal books, dating from British colonial times. Uganda, in particular, has enacted draconian laws against homosexuals, apparently inspired by the proselytizing of American evangelists.

Andrew Bennett, a practising Catholic who heads the Office of Religious Freedom, will have to understand the struggles within religions as much as between religions. Will his diplomatic initiatives deal with religious expression that promotes hatred and violence toward minorities, religious, ethnic or otherwise?

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

The Office of Religious Freedom should address the issue of freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. The Supreme Court of Canada certainly seems to have done so, and many Canadians appear to share these concerns.

It remains to be seen whether Canadian foreign policy in the area of religious freedom will reflect these very Canadian values.