In a place where students pride themselves for being known for their genuine kindness and consideration, many have been surprised by borderline inappropriate actions at the University of Guelph throughout the semester. From the recent cannon display by the campus group LifeChoice, to the billboard display by OAC trivializing and mocking cross-dressing, the on-campus community has seemed uncharacteristically divided because of these questionable demonstrations.
The students of the University of Guelph seem to hold varying opinions on where the line between freedom of speech and hate speech ought to be drawn. On a topic where the divide is so thin, it becomes rather important to distinguish between the two.
By law, everybody is entitled to their own opinion and they should be free to express these opinions without fear of penalization from opposing parties. This is what we commonly refer to as freedom of speech.
However, the term “freedom of speech” can become a guise for the perpetuation of hate speech. Hate speech is any speech or action that attacks a specific type of person based on an attribute. Hate speech can be either unintentional or intentional, and it can target an individual or a group of people. Because of these factors, the topic is not as straightforward as we imagine it to be.
Hate speech happens when an opinion becomes an attack. Hate speech begins as an opinion held by an individual or a group of people which evolves into a direct attack against any person who holds the opposite attribute. Often times, the individuals are ignorant to the fact that what they are doing qualifies as hate speech, as they may not intend for their speech or actions to attack anybody. In the past few months at the university, our community has been subjected to an unusual amount of ‘freedom of speech’ actions that can be considered as borderline acts of hate speech. One of these events gained quite a lot of attention because of its controversial topic: abortion laws.
In October of this year, the campus group LifeChoice, chose to paint the cannon for their cause as well as use a display of abortion statistics in an effort to demonstrate their opinion. This group is devoted to the pro-life stance on the topic of abortion and wanted to make a statement using the cannon.
While many saw this as their right to exercise their freedom of speech, LifeChoice may have unintentionally attacked individuals who have had abortions in the past, or individuals who would consider one in the future.
Wednesday Bell, a University of Guelph student and pro-choice advocate said, “If what you’re saying promotes the idea that a group of people are fundamentally wrong or evil, that’s not free speech.” Wednesday was one of the many University of Guelph students who chose to partake in a counter protest against LifeChoice and the pro-life advocates. The reason this display is more than just an exercise of freedom of speech, in my opinion, is because of their decision to make a visually striking display right in the middle of campus. Its location made it difficult for people who may have been triggered by it to avoid the display.
For a person who feels personally condemned by prolife demonstrations, the display could have been unnerving and upsetting.
The display was aimed at generating a reaction from its audience. If the goal had been to educate the community on the other possible solutions to unplanned pregnancy, they could have done so in a less aggressive way. The conversation on the topic was virtually at a standstill because of the nature of the display.
Though all individuals are entitled to their own opinion, they should not be entitled to attacking those who don’t share the same view. When the opinion progresses to the point of attacking the opposition, it is no longer freedom of speech, but hate speech in action.