Yves Engler's arrest in Montreal has been labelled an 'attack' on free expression in Canada

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/26284554

By Syma Mohammed
Published date: 20 February 2025 21:44 GMT

Alex Tyrrell, party leader of the Green Party of Quebec, who accompanied Engler to the police station on Thursday, spoke to the Middle East Eye about Engler’s arrest.

“I think it’s a shocking attack on free expression and democratic rights and criticism of Israel in Canada - a country that’s supposed to be a free, democratic society. We’re supposed to speak out about a genocide," Tyrrel told MEE.

  • iopq@lemmy.world
    16·
    22 hours ago

    To you, speaking out against Israel is fine, but to some people it might be antisemitic. Whether or not it is against the rights of someone is actually personal opinion, not for the government to decide

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      20 hours ago

      But we’re not required to evaluate the facts of the case based on what “some people” think. We can objectively examine the content of people’s speech and ask whether it’s intent is to advocate against the basic rights of a group of people or not. Criticising Isreal does not meet that test, despite what the ADL might claim.

      Yes, there are grey areas. Yes, there are hard calls that have to be made. But saying “This is hard” and then throwing up your hands and resorting to free speech absolutism because you can’t handle the difficult work of building a society is just childish.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          1 hour ago

          The same way you objectively decide anything else in law. You apply the principles to the facts.

          Your first example there is a gimme; clear and obvious example of antisemitic hate speech. The fact that they’re protesting against Israeli genocide isn’t some magic shield that protects people from criticism. You can protest against the actions of Isreal without declaring that Hitler was right.

          The second one is a grey area. That’s the thing; when you take a serious approach to the problems of the world, instead of fleeing to the simplicity of ideas like free speech absolutism, which require no degree of complex thought, you will inevitably run into grey areas. So I’m not going to give a hard answer on this one because I think it would take a lot of serious thought and debate to come up with a hard answer on it. But I will say that even if it was ruled as intolerant speech, nothing would be lost. You can protest against Isreal and stand up for Palestine without needing to celebrate the actions of Hamas. Those things are not intrinsically linked. So your examples do not demonstrate any kind of underlying flaw with Popper’s principle. Nothing of value is lost if we as a society choose to say that these kinds of speech are unacceptable.

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            11·
            39 minutes ago

            A society can choose to say that certain types of speech are intolerable, but do we get better results by jailing those people? Or do we make it more acceptable over time to jail people who are simply protesting against the government? Do we then apply violence to the protesters who don’t agree to be peacefully arrested?

            This isn’t a theoretical consideration. See Tiananmen square, arrests of protesters in Russia, Iran, etc. The propaganda mouthpieces of these countries love to point out when similar things happen in the West