John Ivison: It’s not ‘cancel culture’ to silence people who encourage terrorism

Poster child for when cancel culture warranted:

….Canada’s Online Harms Act, which is currently before Parliament, aims to hold the online platforms accountable for content that invites violence. It has many shortcomings: the parliamentary budget officer estimates the legislation could cost upward of $200 million over five years to establish the ranks of bureaucrats the government believes are necessary to police the online world. But at least it should make some of this content inaccessible.

But in the real world, it would not stop characters like Kathrada telling impressionable young Muslims that martyrs are “winners” who will be permitted to intercede on behalf of 70 of their relatives in the afterlife.

He is scheduled to deliver a lecture to the University of Victoria’s Muslim Students Association this Sunday and it is safe to say that he will not be arguing that diversity is our strength.

Should he be banned, or at least denounced by the university, or would doing so equate to the worst of the cancel culture that has dominated campuses in recent years?

Yes, he should. This is qualitatively different from the academic environment where there is only one righteous path — the equality of outcomes for “oppressed groups” — and where political diversity is a threat to social justice.

As John Stuart Mill asserted, individual freedom should only be infringed to prevent harm to others.

Kathrada’s history suggests his glorification of martyrdom could encourage those listening to emulate the acts of the martyr.

In a sermon last December, Kathrada prayed for the annihilation of “the plundering, transgressor Jew.” He has previously praised the October 7th terrorist attacks for humiliating Israel.

Hate speech, as defined by the Supreme Court, expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group that goes beyond disdain or dislike. Incitement occurs when a person is actively encouraged to commit or threaten physical violence.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code bans both of those things.

However, Kathrada has a “stay out of jail” card in the form of an exemption included in the Criminal Code that says if the person bases his or her opinion on a religious subject or religious text, he cannot be prosecuted.

Jewish groups have called for new legislation that would outlaw the glorification of terror acts and symbols. But Kathrada’s exemption would likely still apply.

Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B’nai Brith Canada, said Parliament should clarify the limitations on the religious exemption under the Criminal Code.

However, what is clear is that Kathrada’s “kafir society” is passive, if not paralyzed, in the face of the exploitation and abuse of its good will.

Source: John Ivison: It’s not ‘cancel culture’ to silence people who encourage terrorism