BACK-END: Antisemitism as the Pretext for Censorship
A response to Michael Geist's October 7th, 2024 post "Reflecting on October 7th: The Antisemitism Red Alert Warning Won’t Stop Buzzing."
Commentator and academic Michael Geist is a well known and respected Canadian media pundit.
He’s a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and is a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society, the self-described “Canada’s premier research hub on technology law, ethics and policy.”
Canadian Lawyer named him one of the 25 most influential lawyers in Canada back in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and his reputation has grown ever since.
Lately, he’s known more for his “Michael Geist” website, where he provides almost daily commentary on Canada’s media landscape.
As a general rule, Geist understands the challenges to free speech embedded in current Federal government legislation such as Bill C-11 (the Online Streaming Act), Bill C-18 (the Online News Act) and Bill C-63 (the Online Harms Act).
Of course, that doesn’t mean that Geist isn’t just an imperfect human being, fully capable of making big mistakes at the oddest of times.
Some of Geist’s recent comments on “antisemitism,” in particular his October 6th, 2024 Michael Geist post, “Reflecting on October 7th: The Antisemitism Red Alert Warning Won’t Stop Buzzing," fit into this category.
Geist begins with a personal anecdote and relates his experience to the need for an “app” to illustrate and help combat the rising wave of anti-Semitic attacks against the Jewish community in Canada since October 7th, 2023, when Hamas and several other militant Palestinian nationalist groups launched coordinated armed incursions into Gaza.
It’s fair enough, although Geist seems to have forgotten the decline of civility in public discourse across all issues and the increase in acts of violence and vandalization throughout Canada for political ends over the last ten years.
Stories like the September 30th, 2024 True North post, “UPDATE: A map of the 112 churches that have been vandalized or burned since the residential schools announcement,” are obvious reminders that incidences of violence and vandalism are not restricted by race, creed, color, religion or political viewpoint.
Geist then notes that “the political leadership desperately needed to counter antisemitism has too often been absent, leaving the community feeling abandoned during its moment of need.”
According to Geist, more needs to be done:
Governments should demand accountability from publicly-funded institutions that fail to uphold principles of equality and inclusivity for all students and employees, regardless of their political or religious belief.
At the local level, legislation should be created to establish buffer zones to preserve freedom of expression but also protect synagogues, schools, hospitals, and senior homes from protests that too often veer into harassment.
In essence and according to Geist, the real problem is one of Canadian government “accountability,” and a lack of appropriate government “legislation.”
Coming from an academic who’s spent his entire adult life uncovering the limitations and unintended consequences of ill-considered and emotionally laden government laws, Geist’s insistence that political “accountability” coupled with new legislation will solve the problem of “anti-Semitism,” seems to be woefully misplaced.
For Geist, it seems almost a rejection of much of his previous work. Geist knows this just as he knows that governments, especially the current Canadian crop of them, seem never to need to account for their actions.
Besides, the concept of “resisting genocide” is an ineffective strategy when targeting Canadian citizens in the Jewish, or any other community, while ignoring the actual area where the “genocide” is occurring and will continue to occur.
That’s in Gaza and the Middle East, not Canada.
The concept of making everyone “feel safe,” is also problematic unless the perception of safety is grounded in the actual situation, not ignorance.
Legislated “buffer zones” decrease freedom of speech and add to ignorance.
The real solution might just be to reference the first principals western nations were founded on.
At the very least, Canadian must never devolve into a battleground or an additional “front” for things happening elsewhere. People should come to Canada to build a new home, not reproduce the errors and omissions of the old.
While substantial public and private funds are raised in Canada to funnel into the Middle East to one side or another, neither public not private fundraising is violence, although contributions can be subtly encouraged with the appropriate legislation, comments or perceived threats.
Formal government support, fiscally or otherwise, for violent regimes and other questions of public policy are certainly something we can discuss, disagree over publicly and advocate against in much the same way as Canadians have always done.
There’s lots of laws on the books already to deal with truths, lies, propaganda and even actual crimes, both perceived and otherwise.
New legislation is not required to either facilitate or inhibit this process. Even Geist agrees that recent legislation in this area has been problematic and ineffective.
Besides, objecting to a national government's public policy is not racist, even though some Israeli advocates would have you believe otherwise.
Israel has a lot of loud public policy disagreements as noted in various Israeli based publications. The current Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems to be particularly loathed by Israeli voters, despite being the longest serving Israeli PM.
Acknowledging this situation is certainly not anti-Semitic.
The first months of Netanyahu's current term were centered around a proposed reform package in the judicial branch, which drew widespread criticism while the outbreak of war against Hamas on October 7th,2023 seems to have led to increased opposition to Netanyahu and his coalition government from Israeli citizens.
Acknowledging those situations is not being anti-Semitic, either.
In his October 6th post, Geist also notes the role he feels should be played by the private sector:
The private sector also has a significant role to play.
Businesses should fully apply anti-discrimination codes and stand up to bullying that leaves employees and customers feeling unsafe.
Since antisemitism is also rampant online, tech companies should help combat online hate by consistently enforcing their community standards and guidelines as well as ensuring that their algorithms are not surreptitiously amplifying hate.
Geist essentially states that government policies, often contradictory and confusing, should be applied and enforced by corporations in the absence of policing.
But while both anti-discrimination and antisemitism policies aim to protect “individuals and society,” they can also come into conflict, particularly when it comes to free speech and expression.
This is especially true when enforcement occurs through an ostensibly independent 3rd party.
Potential issues include:
Over-reach: Anti-discrimination laws can sometimes be interpreted too broadly (or too narrowly) to comments which may not even be discriminatory but simply offensive and/or unpopular.
The “Chilling Effect”: The fear of censorship has a chilling effect on free speech, as people self-censor to avoid potential social and legal consequences. Chinese legislation in this area encourages this sort of perception, phrasing legislation in general terms to keep the populace unsure of the specifics to insure that the risk adverse public will mostly err on the side of caution.
Ineffective, Inconsistent and Intermittent Enforcement: This is what’s happening in Canada today, where “anti-discrimination laws” are not enforced consistently or effectively. Geist suggests the individual companies should take up the slack to enforce government edicts as they see fit, a situation which could lead to intermittent enforcement, enforcement “over-reach” and the “chilling effect” on public commentary.
In conclusion, Geist got it wrong in his October 7th, 2024 editorial "Reflecting on October 7th: The Antisemitism Red Alert Warning Won’t Stop Buzzing."
His assessment of the situation; his concerns over “antisemitism” while avoiding or ignoring the general coarsening of public discourse in all areas over the last ten years; his insistence that government “accountability” coupled with new legislation will solve the problem; and his “deputizing” of the private sector for policing insures that the end result will be increased censorship, decreased accountability and the continued lowering of the quality of Canadian political discussions.
In essence, Geist wants us “safe,” not informed. It’s a big mistake at the oddest of times.
Trading freedom for temporary safety by legislating "to establish buffer zones" or encourage tech companies to censor content, perceptions, feelings and "hate speech," is not a sensible or useful course of action for a democratic society intent on peaceful solutions.
It is instead, a barrier to those solutions.
Without the freedom to speak, peaceful revolution becomes impossible and violent revolution becomes inevitable.
