Jonathan Kay talks to Kushal Mehra about the similarities in censorship campaigns in India and Canada, discussing the impact of laws like the Herms Act and Section 295A on free speech. They delve into Canada's Online Harm Act, exploring the harsh penalties for hate speech and concerns about selective application of laws. The conversation also touches on blasphemy laws in different countries, the distorted perceptions of danger fueled by media exposure, and the influence of national core cohesiveness on free speech in diverse societies.
Proposed legislation in Canada threatens free speech with severe penalties for hate speech.
Comparing censorship laws in India and Canada reveals chilling effects on critical discourse and dissent.
Deep dives
The Threat to Free Speech in Canada and India
The podcast episode discusses the looming threat to free speech in Canada and India. It highlights the Online Harm Act in Canada, particularly Bill C-63, which proposes severe limitations on speech rights. The comparison is drawn with India's censorship laws, such as Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes blasphemy. The guests bring attention to the alarming increase in penalties for hate speech under the Online Harm Act, potentially leading to life imprisonment for expressing controversial views.
Challenges of Selective Application of Laws
The podcast explores the concerning trend of selectively applying laws to target specific groups or viewpoints. Examples are provided, such as the creation of anti-Palestine hatred category by the Toronto District School Board, raising questions about the fairness and implications of such categorizations. The discussion raises awareness about potential misuse of laws to stifle dissent and control speech, emphasizing the importance of principled governance regardless of political ideologies.
Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Freedom of Expression
The episode delves into the implications of blasphemy laws, highlighting how they restrict freedom of expression and promote self-censorship. Examples from India's Section 295A and Canada's potential legislative directions demonstrate the chilling effect of such laws on critical discourse and dissent. The conversation underscores the need to safeguard free speech against encroachments fueled by political agendas and societal divisions.
Navigating Societal Cohesiveness and Free Speech
The discussion touches on the delicate balance between societal cohesiveness and free speech in diverse societies like India, UK, and Canada. It questions whether the lack of social cohesion leads to more draconian laws and restrictions on expression. The conversation advocates for a nuanced understanding of national core cohesiveness and the role of principled politics in maintaining a healthy environment for diverse viewpoints and open discourse.