KLEIN: The cost and abuse of free speech

Article content

Recently, media outlets in California reported that the University of California spent $29 million on pro-Palestinian encampments. This enormous expense will now fall on the backs of all students and donors, not the protesters, many of whom hid behind masks and dark glasses. The situation begs the question: who is paying the price for similar protests in Manitoba?

Article content

Both the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg have witnessed pro-Palestinian demonstrators setting up encampments. The University of Manitoba’s campus was littered with posters inciting hatred towards Jews, urging that they be targeted. These incidents are not isolated; they reflect a deeper, troubling decay in our social values. Radical ideologies have been allowed to take root in our universities, becoming both institutionalized and normalized. And who bears the cost? We do.

When the Winnipeg Sun inquired about the expenses related to the encampments, the University of Manitoba was evasive, offering only a written statement: “The university covered costs associated with the encampment out of its security and maintenance budget allocations.” Similarly, the University of Winnipeg stated, “The university covered costs associated with the encampment out of its security and maintenance budget allocations. Donations are used to support initiatives outside of operating expenditures. The university has not seen a downward trend in philanthropic giving before or since October 7.”

Article content

Article content

Who should bear the cost of these protests? The expenses for extra security, clean-up services, and property damage are substantial. What if a Jewish student, harassed during these protests, decides to sue the institutions? The universities’ statements imply that taxpayers and donors will ultimately shoulder these costs.

These protests had no direct connection to the universities, nor did the street protests have anything to do with Canadian issues. So why must taxpayers foot the bill? Extra police are required to ensure safety at these protests, which is costly. Moreover, when police resources are diverted to manage protests, it impacts their ability to respond to other calls or engage in crime reduction efforts, affecting all of us.

Article content

In Canada, citizens have the right to peaceful protests, but what are the parameters? CN Rail immediately filed a lawsuit when the tracks were blocked in Winnipeg, citing hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses and potential further costs if the blockade continued. Some laws regulate the duration one can block traffic, but are these laws enforced? Politicians often hesitate to back police enforcement due to potential backlash on social media from anonymous or non-local accounts.

Many believe the call for students to protest did not originate in Canada. Should those who incited these protests bear the associated costs? On social media, self-proclaimed champions of democracy argue that our constitution permits freedom of speech. While true in the USA, Canada’s constitution is slightly different.

Article content

The Canadian Constitution, a document forged in the crucible of democratic ideals, enshrines the principle of freedom of expression in Section 2(b). It grants us the right to voice our thoughts, beliefs, and opinions and to engage in open discourse without fear of reprisal. However, this right comes with an implicit covenant – the expectation of civility and mutual respect. Freedom of speech does not absolve us of the consequences of our words; it demands accountability and ethical conduct in our interactions.

Protests that make Jewish students fearful to attend school or those that chant hateful slogans do not align with the Constitution’s expectation of civility and mutual respect. The principle of free speech is a cherished pillar of democracy, a symbol of our commitment to open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas. Yet, in the modern world, this right has been hijacked, twisted into a weapon of division and discord. When did free speech become a mask to hide behind? This question weighs heavily on our nation’s conscience.

Article content

In recent times, free speech has been manipulated to justify acts of aggression and hatred under the guise of peaceful protest. Individuals cloaked in anonymity, their faces hidden by masks, brandish placards of intolerance and vitriol, all in the name of exercising their right to expression. But let us be clear: free speech was never intended to cover those who seek to sow discord or incite violence. It is not a shield to be wielded indiscriminately but a responsibility to be exercised with prudence and respect for others’ dignity.

Should protesters be accountable for the costs associated with their actions if they do not adhere to civility and mutual respect? This is a question we must confront as a society. The burden of these protests should not fall on students, taxpayers, or donors. It’s time we reconsider the parameters of free speech and ensure that those who abuse it are held accountable.

— Kevin Klein is a former Tory cabinet minister, a former city councillor and is the President & CEO of Klein Group Ltd.

Have thoughts on what’s going on in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada or across the world? Send us a letter to the editor at wpgsun.letters@kleinmedia.ca

Article content