For a vivid illustration of the hypocrisy of the Left’s response
to the United States War on Terrorism, one needs only to
consider the controversy sparked earlier this month by Sunera
Thobani, an assistant professor of women's studies at the
University of British Columbia.
On October 1st, the Tanzanian-born Thobani grabbed headlines by
denouncing the "bloodthirsty" U.S. government as "the most
dangerous global force" with a "foreign policy...soaked in
blood." Thobani labeled the War as "patriarchal racist violence"
conducted to colonize colored people.
In response to these remarks, Canadian authorities are now
investigating Thobani for hate speech. Under Section 319(1) of
Canada's Criminal Code, she faces a jail sentence if convicted
of inciting public hatred of an "identifiable group" — in this
case, Americans — that "is likely to lead to a breach of the
peace."
The situation drips with irony. For years, Thobani, a Leftist
feminist, has called for the suppression of patriarchal, white
male, "racist" views (such as speaking well of Western culture).
Now, she needs to defend herself against those who would perhaps
restrict her speech by penalizing her for her public statements.
Suddenly Thobani and her defenders have discovered the principle
of free speech.
The action being taken against Thobani is a matter of free
speech, but not in the sense that she would have you believe.
First, the Women's Conference at which Thobani attacked
Americans was financed by $80,000 from the Canadian government —
the Canadian taxpayers. Hedy Fry, the Canadian Secretary of
State (Status of Women) sat in the cheering, applauding audience
and indicated no disagreement with Thobani's views. Whatever
word describes a viewpoint financed by tax dollars and presided
over by a high-ranking government official, "censorship" isn't
it.
"Censorship" would apply if charges of hate speech are actually
brought against Thobani. But this is unlikely. Such prosecutions
are rare and the law exempts most statements made on issues
relevant to public interest.
All that Thobani currently confronts is a private backlash
against her tax-financed, seemingly state-sanctioned beliefs.
Indeed, the unusual step of announcing an accusation before a
charge has been brought is probably a retroactive attempt by the
government to distance itself from Thobani.
Yet Thobani and her admirers would like to paint her as a martyr
to the anti-American cause.
Consider the reaction of the university. Barry McBride, academic
vice-president of UBC, defended Thobani on the grounds of
academic freedom. "I'm not here to judge on the content...but to
defend her as an academic and her...academic freedom," he
stated. Tineke Hellwig, chair of UBC's women studies program,
declared, "It's essential that people see different sides to an
issue." Thobani herself declared, "They are trying to silence
dissent in this country."
The UBC as a bastion of academic freedom and a protector of
dissent? James Steiger, Professor of Psychology at UBC, offers a
slightly different perspective.
Steiger became a flashpoint for feminist wrath in 1994 when he
published a critique of a UBC survey of 344 tenure track female
faculty members that concluded that the environment was "chilly"
for women. The university began to consider reforms to correct
the perceived problem.
So Steiger tested the survey and found, among other
observations, that the researcher had not interviewed male
faculty members. It was therefore not possible to conclude that
women were any more "chilled" than men. The harshest passage in
the mildly-worded article called the study "biased, not
particularly competent, and of little use."
The next issue of Ubyssey, the student newspaper, lambasted
Steiger. A university feminist was quoted as saying the article
was "the language of violence used to express men's
psychological irritation."
Shortly thereafter, "Chilly Climate Week" was launched to
support women and minorities. (Men were excluded even from the
definition of "chilly climate.") Thobani gave the keynote
speech, which Ubyssey described as "a stinging indictment" of
how universities are "oppressive toward women and minorities."
Singling out white male professors, she placed much of the blame
for this on a new "professional anti-feminist class" who used
"freedom of speech" as a vehicle for propagating this oppression.
"Thobani derided freedom of speech as a device for keeping white
males in power," Steiger said. Explaining the feminist position
at UBC, he said, "Men are guilty oppressors, women helpless
victims, so any solution must be imposed on men from above."
Nevertheless, UBC's McBride publicly defends Thobani on the
basis of the same free speech she attacks when practiced by
others. And Left voices in the press accuse Thobani's critics of
fomenting a new "McCarthyism" — the same term Steiger used to
describe Thobani’s own tactics at UBC.
Prosecuting Thobani under hate speech laws has a morbid justice
about it. Feminists and the Left have championed these sorts of
laws to stifle "offensive" words and attitudes toward minorities
and women. But stifling anyone's speech cannot be tolerated by a
free society.
Fortunately, a more effective remedy exists.
Thobani has been spreading intolerance at tax-payer expense
since at least as early as 1993, when she became president of
Canada's National Action Committee on the Status of Women. She
became notorious for driving the white leadership out of power
and for shifting the focus of Canadian feminism away from women
and on to race.
Taxpayers should not fund Thobani's hate crusade. She should be
forced to support herself in the capitalist world she so loudly
decries — a world to which she freely immigrated as an adult.
Then she would learn that her ideas, to recall the words of
Steiger, are "biased, not particularly competent, and of little
use."
