Chris Selley: The perils of ‘defining’ bigotry

A valid dissenting view. Although I find illustrative examples are helpful improving understanding and can be the basis for conversation:

…This is the world we live in. If Holocaust denial is illegal (or sort of), then, the thinking goes, why shouldn’t denying the Nakba or the disastrous effects of the residential school system be illegal (or sort of) as well? A reasonable person could give a reasonable answer to that question. But governments aren’t reasonable people.

As I say, I totally understand Jewish groups’ concern. Some of the definitions of anti-Palestinian racism out there certainly seem studiously, deliberately vague. Citing the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East includes as examples “erasing the human rights and equal dignity and worth of Palestinians,” which is meaningless; and “justifying violence against Palestinians,” which could easily include defending Israel’s right to retaliate against Hamas atrocities.

But it should also be noted that Elghawaby welcomed the prospect of a definition, not any specific definition. I see little point in such “definitions” if they’re not going to be enshrined in law. But it would have made much more sense for Canada to craft its own definition of antisemitism instead of signing on to an international one that, in my view, does activate freedom-of-speech concerns. Free speech in Canada is far more protected than in many of our peer nations, and that’s a good thing.

It probably would have made far more sense still to leave all of this alone. Canadian law sets an appropriately high bar for prosecuting hate speech against any group. We don’t need the added confusion and division of “defining” every single form of bigotry.

Source: Chris Selley: The perils of ‘defining’ bigotry