Doug Christie's Speech at the University of Ottawa, April 8, 2010
I’m here to talk about
free speech. I’m not here to practice it.
I have been trained to
remain very sensitive to the broad political implications of these topics lest I
face a very expensive lesson in the Human Rights Tribunal.
What the Supreme Court
taught me when I appeared in
The Law Society, through its
decision of Harvey Strosberg taught me that if I speak in public, “law
students” may tape some but not all of my words, and the Chairman of the
Discipline Committee can issue a statement to the media condemning me as
“identifying with a lunatic fringe,” even in the very act where he decides
not to give me the benefit of a hearing where I could answer the allegation with
evidence where both sides could be heard.
I learned that our
parliamentarians of all parties love free speech so much that they banned
someone from the precincts of Parliament who wanted to rent the parliamentary
press gallery, a place anyone can rent for a press conference.
What was the press
conference about? That the Human Rights Tribunal had ruled in Zundel’s case
that “Truth was no defence,” and the truth of the statement could not be
proven by any evidence. I know because that someone was me, the only lawyer in
Canadian history to be banned by all party agreement from the precincts of
parliament. Because in
I have learned and been
carefully taught to avoid the taboo topics, to measure every word lest a tape
recorder in the audience be taken to the Human Rights Commission, the police,
the Law Society, or someone who likes to complain to the Human Rights
Commission.
I have learned to talk about
free speech but never practice it. Never say anything like
Universities are the most
dangerous place to practice free speech. Even topics like abortion which you
would not normally involve a taboo topic can quickly be spun into forbidden
territory and sexism can result in expulsion or criminal charges. The civility
of universities is accorded to those who can mobilize the largest screaming mob.
No one listens.
I have to even be careful
how I speak about Freedom of Speech.
So let me just speak about
freedom of speech. I have come here to praise freedom of speech, not to bury it.
I do not want to be cynical or bitter. But since 1984 when I took up the cause
of freedom, I have become aware of the price to be paid for this precious legacy
of freedom.
My office has been
vandalized, repeatedly; my name has been defamed in the press; I have been the
target of spurious complaints to law societies, I haven been banned from the
precincts of parliament. The very press who today became the target of
complaints themselves because they post on the internet, who have come late to
the battle, because of their money and power, are turning the tide. They were
not long ago in the forefront of the mob, vilifying my clients and myself, since
it was not their ox that was gored. Irony,
thy name is
1984, the year Orwell
entitled his most famous work was actually the year I got involved in the
defence of James Keegstra. From that moment on, the lawyer who had defended
successfully all manner of criminal cases from drugs to rape to murder and with
no ill effects to his reputation other than professional jealousy became in the
eyes of many, through the window of the media, a hated nazi-lawyer. This title,
I have worn to this day, at first reluctantly and gradually resigned myself to
it, knowing as “Human Rights” law tells us, “Truth is no defence.”
Promoting hatred of an individual is no offence.
I would never be elected
anywhere to anything. Any party would expel me, the right of left for fear of
the media. I was warned this would happen. “Better alone than in the company
of hypocrites,” I reasoned.
There is one hope and that
is that truth cannot be buried forever, and people will tell it come what may,
even about race, religion, or ethnicity. There are some truths to be told on
that score. They are the building blocks of culture and even the government of
The best indication of what
is the true value of free speech is provided by what happens when it is taken
away. The thinking people become “bush league.” The first reaction to a
controversial idea is not to hear the person about whom you heard, but to adopt
the mob-mind view.
Left-wing, multicultural,
tolerant, good. Right wing, xenophobic, intolerant, bad. A few code words and
the mob takes the argument to the streets. The psychological guillotine cuts off
debate and civility like the real guillotine cut off heads in
The Roman maxim: “Audi
Alteram Partem” was over the door of the law library at
I believe the truth is that
the idea of tolerance has been used as an Orwellian doublespeak smoke screen for
intolerance and is really about narrowing the scope of debate before the debate
begins. This is consistent with Marxism, but it is not consistent with
liberalism or of constitutional principles of free speech. Certain topics cannot
be discussed.
We don’t absolutely make
it illegal to talk about certain subjects, we just make it so dangerous, with so
many obscure and complex rules that no one dares to go there. Somewhat like gun
laws. We don’t overtly ban all fire arms. No, we would find too much
resistance and rational criticism. The hypocritical Canadian way is simply to
regulate them out of existence, gradually, just like controversial speech. Hate
laws mean whatever we say they mean. We will only tell you after you say
something if you have offended. This is the process of gradual Marxism. The
state gradually disarms the citizen of their weapons and their free speech by
slow degrees so that absolute control both physical and mental will be with the
state.
The other side of this
equation is the enforcers, state agents, professional complainers, the enablers
of state power. These are the people who go from politicians to judge or from
politician to president of a University. They create a network of willing and
compliant officials who can be counted on to cleverly manipulate and manage the
progress from freedom, which they call “anarchy,” to the tyranny they call a
“benevolent oligarchy.”
Thus they acquire through a
system of servants and paid enforcers, through Human Rights Commissions and
police forces where they are the only persons authorized by law to break into
your house, seize your computer, examine your files, your books, your speeches,
your appearances and even your surreptitiously recorded comments as in the case
of David Ahenakew.
They can ruin you. They can
prosecute you. They can and will vilify you in the press. As was done to David
Ahenakew and then even if you win, you still lose. You go through court for four
years of stress and when you are finally acquitted, no one says “sorry” or
pays your costs. On the contrary, they repeat in the media around the world the
words of the judge condemning you in the very act of acquitting you.
And the state has all the
gun s, police, sheriffs, jails, probation officers, all paid by the state which
you support with your taxes. If you want to be a paid bully, there’s a job for
you. If you want to shoot people, just don’t say so, join the RCMP. You can
taser people like Dziekanski. If you want to shoot teenagers like Ian Bush, or
misfits like
Just be sure you don’t
admit what you did and the establishment will protect you. You are after all,
protecting them. We are paying for our own enslavement. Only a few really know
where we are going. The rest are following along for the ride, and the free
lunch.
(Oops! Too much free
speech!)
So if you want to carry on
down the road to tyranny, just shout me down. If you want to go quietly into the
night of tyranny, just ignore what I have said. Put it out of your mind and
never think of it again. But if you want to move forward to a better world keep
this in mind. The legitimate function of the state is to preserve and maximize
the freedom of the conscience, belief and opinion of the individual. It is not
to create a social model of artificial cultural stew, enforced by law. We have
inherent rights to survive as a free people only to the extent we articulate,
manifest with rigorous debate, and listen to, all opinion with an enlightened
and critical mind. Let us not presume we are possessed of all knowledge before
the discussion starts, and set a limited agenda for social and acceptable
speech.