NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
SUNDAY SPECTATOR
September 29, 2002
Stiff necks
Freedom of speech freedom of association freedom to mount a theatrical demonstration in a public place and chant idiotic slogans and lies -- these are all among the "rights of the people" under the Canadian constitution and in our society. The law states cautiously what tradition sustains: you can "do what you want so long as you don't hurt anybody". And the tradition must be a living one for most Canadians take such rights for granted. Now that is a bit of a problem a quandary I've been contemplating for many years and with some urgency since 9/11. There is no difficulty getting people who lack freedom to appreciate freedom. At the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall I was struck not only by the desire for freedom (including all the above rights) but by the speed with which the cause was advanced. People in countries which had been under the Soviet Communist thumb for almost two generations were able to restore or create something resembling Western-style institutions almost overnight. Flawed of course; but everything is flawed and in this world we settle for reasonable approximations. This was probably because most had historical experience; plus models in similar countries next door. The Czech Republic for instance had been between the World Wars an especially vibrant liberal democracy. The memory of how it was done was still there. To some extent each of the other countries of Central Europe had some historical experience to draw on; and even in the Balkans countries like Romania and Bulgaria had precedents of limited constitutional monarchies. (I worry that the Arab countries have no such precedents; and only each other for neighbours.) What I am saying is that the desire for freedom and some idea of what is involved in obtaining and preserving it are not the same thing. The desire is I believe universally human. The knowledge is however hard-won. It can be taught but it can also be forgotten. The reverse becomes the case where freedom has triumphed. The institutional knowledge tends to be maintained if only by bureaucratic inertia. In fact it is more than this the whole code of laws and the daily action of courts and Parliaments keep freedom alive. So it has momentum too; enough to carry through minor and even some major challenges and recover quickly from miscarriages of justice and procedure. But the desire to preserve our freedom and thus to preserve the security without which freedom is lost tends to ebb in time -- with freedom and security. What was once believed with fire in the belly and was once defended with fire in the hand becomes the object of mere lip service. We see no threats to our freedom on the horizon finally even when they are there. We forget that nothing on this planet is forever -- that what is left without nourishment will die. Consider the great cathedrals of Europe that look so permanent in carved stone. Why are they still standing when most contemporary buildings are in ruin? It is not because they were made of stone which lasts "forever" -- ancient Greece and Rome were also built of stone. It is because the buildings themselves have been continuously inhabited; because they have remained in use; because the repairs have been done in every season; because they were continuously secured against the enemies of Christendom; because the looters who carted away the stone of ancient Rome using the city as an immense quarry didn't get a start. Europe is also littered with the remains of monasteries that ceased to be inhabited for one reason or another -- reduced to outlines and foundations or to vague records or to lost ones. Likewise with the Jews. Here is a people who have been beleaguered more often than not for several thousand years from ancient Pharaoh to modern Hitler and Arafat and Osama and Saddam; and who still exist because they have in my analogy continued to inhabit and repair their Temple. Not a Temple of stone like the one whose remains demolished by the Romans lie under the platform of the beautiful Haram-al-Sharif in Jerusalem; but a Temple still more beautiful in the human heart. They are a people who have lived too often without allies and without earthly hope; who migrated in large numbers to their ancestral home of Israel in that century-old and in retrospect rather na?ve Zionist project to create a land where the Jews could live in peace or at least have the honour of defending themselves rather than be left to defence by others. "A stiff-necked people in the words of an articulate Palestinian correspondent from Montreal, who was recently involved in breaking up the speaking engagement for Binyamin Netanyahu at Concordia University. Whose companions smashed windows, and beat up even aging Holocaust survivors; who spray-painted anti-Semitic slogans; who pelted the Jews they found on the street outside Concordia with pennies and nickels they had collected for this purpose; who harangued from a bullhorn from the lid of a squad car, while the Montreal policemen watched. Who succeeded in stifling free speech in Canada, at least at Concordia. The same who were on the streets after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, to dance and celebrate this Muslim victory" -- in Montreal as well as on the streets of Gaza back home. Who have invaded the campuses of Ottawa U. and Carleton intimidating Jewish students there and distributing very offensive pamphlets. (To its credit the administration of Ottawa U. has taken steps to prevent further intimidation -- only to be damned for them by the uncomprehending.) The same who were out with their information tables in Ottawa on Friday then on the lawn of Parliament yesterday. Who are well-organized and well-funded from whatever source through an organization called "Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights" which can fairly claim to be one of Canada's "largest and fastest growing grassroots organizations". We should not deny them the right to speak no matter who disagrees with their opinions or even more with their facts. Nor should we deny them the right to peaceful assembly or public theatre at a booked venue. But at the first sign of intimidation why weren't the police all over them and digging to the roots of their murkily-sponsored organization? For we seem to have forgotten that vandalism and personal assault are not extensions of free speech but rather attacks upon it; that brownshirts and blackguards are not the vanguard of liberty. Liberty instead requires stiff necks: and if we don't wake to the fact that Jews are increasingly under attack on the campuses and streets of Canada we shall soon be reminded of the rest of the story. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top