Here is how free speech works…

The Charlie Hebdo massacre has inspired a lot of us to think about and talk about the right to freedom of expression. I have read several commentators -- from Tweets, to Facebook comments, to some of the nation's best known newspaper columnists -- who utterly confuse elements of the right to freedom of expression.

Here is how it works.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists our fundamental freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Simple. You have the right to think what you want and to say what you want. Well... sort of. There are two circumstances in which your freedom is limited.

In the first place, the boundary of your freedom is the point at which you are interfering with someone else’s rights and freedoms. To use a simplified example, you can think that you want to punch Todd Bertuzzi in the face. You have this freedom. But, when you say to Todd, “I am going to punch you in the face” then you have interfered with Todd’s right to security of the person. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person…” 

This roughly frames the classic legal issue around rights and freedoms. Namely, whose freedom is more important, the person expressing themselves or the person being threatened? As it turns out we can’t all just go around doing whatever we want because this interferes with each other’s freedom to go around doing whatever we want. There are limits.

Freedom of the press and freedom of expression guarantee the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish satirical cartoons depicting Muhammad. Does this expression interfere the Muslim freedom of religion such that it should be limited? No. Clearly not. Nothing in these cartoons has in any way interfered with how you practice your religion. You, as a Muslim, might well be offended by the cartoons. You might even believe that the authors of the cartoons and editors of Charlie Hebdo have a direct pass to hell. You are free to hold these beliefs. Nobody is interfering with you.

According to the Qur'an, on the Last Day the world will be destroyed and all people will be raised from the dead to be judged by Allah as to whether they deserved to be sent to paradise or hell. Hell will be occupied by those who do not believe in God, have disobeyed His law, and/or reject His messengers. One group that will not have to wait until the Last Day to enter hell are "Enemies of Islam", who are sentenced immediately to Hell upon death.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are protected by the right to freedom of expression. They are also protected, fortunately, by humanity and the deep offense and emotion that almost everyone has felt around the murder of seventeen people, ostensibly justified as an act of faith. Sick.

The other circumstance that can limit your freedom of expression is by agreeing to limits. Universities, for instance, are communities in which the members – students and faculty – agree to codes of conduct. The students agree to be respectful of one another, for instance. Just as a university community can ask its members that they agree not to enter into same sex relationships (Trinity University), a university can ask its membesr to be nice to one another. In the case of agreement, the rights and punishment only extend to the limits of the institution. Thus, Dalhousie University can expel students who are in breach of the university’s agreement. The state, though, cannot punish these same students unless a wider infringement of someone’s rights can be shown because the state does not have jurisdiction over the private affairs of the university.

To be clear, you have the freedom to say what you want but what you say may preclude you from membership in some groups or organizations.

I have seen a lot of confusion between these two. I have seen several commentators attempt to overrule agreed limits to the freedom of expression with the Charter freedoms. The Charter will keep you out of jail for being a bigoted, racist, misogynist, ass. It does not protect you from censure and punishment from the institution you are a part of. Your group – university, community, business, professional association, union, or whatever – can censure you for your expressions if you are in breach of your agreement. The question in this case is, “Does your expression breach the agreement you made when you became part of this organization?” 

This is why Dalhousie is tricky. What agreement can the university use to punish the thirteen members of the Dalhousie gentlemen’s club? For the record, I don’t think they should automatically go on to be dentists. I hope that professionals have a high level of comportment and moral judgement. I hope that these gentlemen come to see this and reform. This is why Ontario wants to know who the thirteen are. They want to review and possibly exclude their type of thinking from their profession. Bravo. I also think that they should be given the opportunity to grow up. To reform. But, I think that Dalhousie is in a very complex legal position because I am not certain that a conversation that was intended to be private can be made a breach of the agreements of the university or the dental school. Difficult. 

Meh… who needs whole textbooks? Freedom of expression explained in 800 words.