How far should we stretch our freedom of speech? (Part I)

Canada as a nation has reason to be proud of its Charter of Rights and one of those rights is the freedom of speech which includes the freedom to write and publish what you honestly believe in. Of course, there are limits to these rights. For example, in Canada, you cannot advocate genocide. Further, you cannot insult a nation by saying that the entire population in that nation are thieves, murderers and child molesters etc. You can’t deny that the Holocaust and extermination of millions of Jews didn’t exist. Further, you cannot defame someone by accusing them of something they did or are when you have no proof of your allegations. This doesn’t mean you can’t call a person a creep or a disgusting individual. Canada as well as other nations has plenty of those people around.

There are two recent incidents that have taken place in Canada that bear retelling. The issue of our freedom of speech plays an important role in these two cases.

The first one is about Jenny Peto. She is a 29-year-old student at the University of Toronto who has written a controversial master’s thesis. Her 100-page thesis argued that today's Jews of European descent ‘enjoy white privilege’ and maintain a victim identity by participating in ‘hegemonic’ Holocaust remembrance programs such as the March of the Living, during which young Jewish people visit Poland and Israel. The University of Toronto accepted her thesis and awarded a master's degree to the 29-year-old, student who is an activist associated with the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid group. She's also Jewish and a descendant of Holocaust survivors.

Her thesis is entitled, The Victimhood of the Powerful: White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of Hegemonic Holocaust Education, and it described Israel as an apartheid state. I haven’t read the thesis but I have presumed that she is maintaining that the Israelis are treating the Palestinians in the same manner that the whites in South Africa used to treat the blacks in that country.

University of Toronto provost Cheryl Misak said most if not all dissertations from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, where Ms. Peto studied, are scrutinized by a panel of experts who must grill the student and pose all kinds of obstacles to the student’s position in the student’s thesis. Though Ms. Misak wasn't present at Ms. Peto's thesis defence, she says she's confident the process met the high standards set by the institution.

However, a certain provincial politician has raked Ms. Peto over the coals in the Ontario Legislature because of what she wrote in her thesis. It has provoked intense debate online, in academia and even the political realm. Progressive Conservative MPP Steve Clark raised it in the legislature in response to sharp criticism in the Jewish community, calling it "shockingly anti-Semitic." Citizenship and immigration minister Eric Hoskins likewise condemned the thesis in the legislature saying he was "greatly disturbed and, in fact, disgusted," when he read media coverage about it. Incidentally, he never read the thesis. He was accepting the comments of members of the Jewish community who in all likelihood, also never read Ms. Peto’s thesis before he spoke.

In a statement to the National Post, Mr. Hoskins stood by his condemnation of the student’s thesis. He said, "I rose in the House to condemn all anti-Semitism, a particularly vile and pernicious form of discrimination. The lessons to be learned from the Holocaust are pivotal, not just for the Jewish community, but for all Ontarians."

Oh my. Fancy words but where is his real response to what Ms. Peto wrote in her thesis? He could have been more specific.

Ms. Peto responded to the criticism by saying her academic freedom was under attack. "I never could have imagined an MA thesis getting this much attention," she said. "But given my reputation as a vocal critic of Israel, I am never surprised to be attacked by pro-Israel groups or pro-Israel politicians, for that matter."

Academics are calling the Ontario politicians’ condemnation of a university student thesis, an attack on scholarly freedom, but those offended by the controversial paper insist they won't let ‘hate’ hide behind the veil of academia.

It seems to me that students and researchers should be able to research and publish on controversial matters without the fear of attacks from the politicians who are attempting to bring their name to the public eye.

It is certainly unusual for a student's work to be challenged by elected representatives, said Michiel Horn, a York University history professor and author of Academic Freedom in Canada: A History. She said, "I know not of a single case where a master's or a PhD paper has been subject of discussion in the legislature of any province in Canada. This is hardly the forum," She added, insisting that politicians should not be perceived to be tearing apart a thesis that has already been vetted by two university experts. They're called defences for good reason. The thing that concerns me is that this is a piece of student work and it's part of a wider educational project. It's important to remember that. Then she said, “Anyone who disagrees with a thesis, paper, book or statement and might find it offensive can offer counter-arguments. That's what freedom of expression is, that's how it ought to unfold. Condemnation is not really how expression is done." unquote

But as far as Peter Shurman, the Thornhill MPP is concerned, all hate should be condemned — and hate is exactly what he believes this particular thesis is about. He said, "I am sure that the legislature is a place to discuss anything that affects the general wellbeing of the people of Ontario. I'm not sure Ontario is an appropriate place for preaching hate." He hasn't read the student’s thesis, but he says that nonetheless, he owes it to his largely Jewish constituents to defend Israel on their behalf.

Since this man hasn’t read the thesis, he should keep his trap shut and stop mouthing what his Jewish handlers are telling him to say.

Ms. Peto claims that the phone number used under the title Palestine House Media in a CAF press release sponsored by Palestine House is actually her personal phone number. She said, “I am a Jewish-Canadian who is involved in the Palestine solidarity movement in Toronto. Despite Kay’s accusations, I am not affiliated with Palestine House, the Canadian Arab Federation or The Palestinian Authority. I have however, on various occasions, offered the use of my extra cell phone as a media contact for local events that I happen to support.” In my opinion, no one should allow their land line or cell phone to be used by others.

In a quick Google search, it appears that Ms. Peto is affiliated with an organization called Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid or CAIA. A search on Google for CAIA and Palestine House shows they are joined at the hip. In fact, both are listed together in a public letter to the Royal Ontario Museum about their Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition. This is not a small piece of information since the original protest letter as well as John Greyson’s letter both mentioned the Toronto Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition, and the National Post’s Kay states that Palestine House advocated against the exhibition just 4 days after the Palestinian Authority published a letter to the Royal Ontario Museum attacking the upcoming show. CAIA appears to have also been directly involved with the attacks against that show and they are mentioned together with Palestine House in the letter.

Jenny Peto was involved as well in a press release about a demonstration against the war in Gaza, where she is listed along with a board member of, you guessed it, Palestine House as a keynote speaker and once again her phone number appears as a listing for Palestine House Media. By the way, the board member of Palestine House, Rafeef Ziadah, is also listed on different sites as a “facilitator,” “organizer” and “member” of CAIA.

Ms. Peto is obviously involved to some degree with CAIA and it makes me wonder if she is the mouthpiece for that group. In any case, the issue isn’t whether or not she made a public statement in the press, on the radio or on television. The issue is; does she have the right to write a master’s thesis on any subject she chooses to write on without some political hack trying to earn brownie points in the legislature on behalf of his Jewish handlers.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with advocacy, even if it is anti-Israel advocacy. Canada is a free country, Israel is a free country, the US is a free country and we cherish the freedom to speak openly. People can criticize Israel, even unfairly all day long if they wish and they should be able to do it without some political hacks barfing all over the legislature floor about how wronged they feel.

It doesn’t really matter that what is purportedly a grass roots movement is actually controlled by organizers who may be professionals and it wouldn’t especially matter if there is a connection, indirect as it might be, to the Palestinian Authority in Israel. The Palestinians have right to be heard.

I should point out however that Palestine House has publicly stated; “Palestine House is an independent community organization with no ties, financial or political, to the Palestinian Authority."

It would appear to me that the main issue here is the right of a university student to write his or her thesis in any manner he or she sees fit. The only people that should be criticizing that student’s thesis is the university itself. What we don’t need is political hacks regurgitating on the legislative floor what they have been fed by outside sources.

The second incident is equally important. It involves a high school student who voiced his opinion about a school program at a public meeting in the school. Grade 12 student Emil Cohen, vented at a school assembly about the school's soccer team, which, he said, has inadequate equipment, uniforms and coaches. Cohen was warned by the school not to make his speech and when he did, he was suspended for two days.

Hundreds of students turned out for a rally against censoring free speech outside Northern Secondary School which is a mid-town Toronto high school. The protest stemmed from the suspension of Emil Cohen at that school.

The Toronto District School Board said Cohen's suspension is a result of his speech not being made in the right way and he will not be allowed to participate in school sports because he was red-carded in the team's last game.

"This issue is free speech and it was correct and in the right place," said Henry Lee Heinonen, one of the rally organizers. "During our education we have been told to stand up for what is right. The speech was not offensive. He was standing up for what he thought was right. For that, Emil was suspended for two days and his sports privileges were revoked."

The school board told Cohen he should have used the school paper or student council to voice his concerns. As far as I am concerned, that is hogwash. What guarantee does a student have that what he writes in the school paper won’t be vetted first and then deleted from the paper before it is published?

Ontario NDP's education critic, Rosario Marchese said, “Instead of suspending students, educators should promote critical thinking. Emil spoke his mind in a respectful way. The teachers and principal involved made a mistake and should admit it and rescind the expulsion.”

“The students need to believe in freedom and justice”, said another of the rally's organizers, Max Naylor. He added when addressing his comments to the suspended student, "We have made this a national issue. The entire country is watching you and is inspired by you. We believe in freedom and will fight for it."

School Superintendent Ian Allison attended the rally. He said, "It is good to express your opinion and they are expressing themselves in a responsible way...there are different opinions here.” He was only speaking of the rally.

I would be remiss if I didn’t say that since I wrote this piece, the school has decided that the student’s athletics privileges have been reinstated such as the school is letting the teen use gym facilities and participate in intramural sports and attend games again.

There is no doubt in my mind at all that had the newspaper not written a story about what had happened to this boy and his fellow students didn’t rally behind him, the dummies at the school who took away his privileges would have continued to remain pig headed. The question that remains unanswered is, “Do these pig-headed dummies realize that they were infringing on their student’s freedom of speech? Probably not.

In my opinion, everyone has the right to criticize any institution or country that he or she thinks has done something wrong. It is through these criticisms that things can improve. As an example, let me tell you of one criticism that ended up having an effect on the lives of millions of children.

In September 1980, I addressed a United Nations Congress held in Caracas, Venezuela. In my paper (speech) I thoroughly condemned the United States federal government in the manner in which they treated their young offenders. After I finished my speech, the head of the American delegation asked the chairman of the session for permission to respond to my allegations. The permission was granted (a rarity in the UN Congresses) and the American delegate admitted that I was quite right in my allegations and that the American delegation was going to bring in a resolution the following morning proposing that my proposal for a bill of rights for young offenders be created by the UN. The next day, all of the delegations voted in favour of the American resolution and five years later, the bill of rights (United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice) was adopted by the UN general assembly. And yes, I have no difficulty getting into the United States. The Americans recognized that I too had the freedom to speak my mind at U.N. Congresses.

If the UN had decided to prevent me from giving my speech because of outside pressures, the bill of rights would never have been created. This clearly illustrates the importance of exercising our freedom of speech.

There are countries like China that imprison their citizens for years simply because they are speaking about injustices occurring in those countries. Had I lived in Germany after Hitler took power of that nation, and spoke against the wrongdoings of the Nazis, I would have been immediately arrested, tried and hanged, all within 24 hours. It’s with this knowledge that I am deeply appreciative of the fact that I live in a country such as Canada where free speech is respected. Although, we have hypocrites who would denounce us for exercising our rights to publicly state what our opinions are, the vast majority of Canadians recognize the value of that freedom in which our soldiers in the past, fought and died for.