This week the Vancouver Public Library is at the center of outcry over its hosting of Meghan Murphy’s event. She is perhaps the highest profile transphobe in Canada along with Jordan Peterson. The VPL said in its statement following the negative attention:
VPL is not endorsing, or hosting this event; it is a rental of our public space. VPL has zero tolerance for discrimination and does not agree with the views of the Feminist Current. However, commitment to free speech and intellectual freedom are fundamental values of public libraries and are bedrock values for democratic society. As such, we will not refuse to rent to an individual or organization simply because they are discussing controversial topics or views, even those we find offensive. We seek to be a welcoming place for all, and actively find ways to support the trans, gender variant and two-spirit communities.
It reminded me of the University of Toronto debate in November 2016 on gender identity featuring Jordan Peterson. The University of Toronto said at the time through their media relations person:
Media relations director Althea Blackburn-Evans said Peterson “has the right to express his views,” but that faculty members “also have responsibilities to create a learning environment at the University of Toronto that’s free from discrimination.
“The university’s mandate is to foster discussion and debate around topics that can often be very controversial,” Blackburn-Evans said.
In both cases these venues portrayed themselves as neutral and against discrimination. On this I wish to be clear:
- Debates are not neutral.
- Hosting speakers is not a neutral gesture.
We know this, because had the speaker been a Neo-Nazi, the VPL and U of T wouldn’t have given them a platform. It isn’t a violation of free speech to decline to give a platform to bigotry, but it is a choice.
It is inconsistent to insist they oppose discrimination while playing a key part in promulgating beliefs that a particular segment of society should be denied fundamental rights. It is no coincidence that the people making such statements on behalf of these institutions are not those targeted by this vitriol.
Part of what is going on here, I believe, is this myth that debates are neutral. That speech does not contribute to discrimination. That we live in a society of unfettered free speech. That the right side wins in the battle of ideas. That discrimination is a thing of the past, or a thing that takes place over there, or a case of individuals acting badly.
It ignores that for groups that are marginalized, the side to win these debates in the beginning is the side that argues to further ostracize them. The view of those with power, be it on women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, sex worker rights, indigenous rights, always starts off opposed. Eventually, but certainly not always as we see with indigenous rights an sex workers, there is a shift. During that transition, a lot of people continue to be opposed to rights. So when you inject a platform for people to argue to support this marginalization during this period of transition, it carries heft. People listen. This doesn’t take place in a void and so people act on what they hear. Those acts are legal – most discrimination is. And it can do a lot of damage.
Jordan Peterson rose to fame specifically on the basis of his transphobic views amplified by Canadian and American media. So it happens now that I sit down at a restaurant, and I overhear the man at the table next to me share with great enthusiasm to the person across from him Jordan Peterson’s view on gender. That man, and those like him, are embolden through this validation to treat people like me worse. These views are validated and legitimized through their association with institutions like the University of Toronto and the Vancouver Public Library. They thought it was okay, so it’s okay for me too, right?
To the cis people heading these institutions, it’s harmless free speech. It’s harmless to them that’s for sure. But to me, it’s adding to the bottom tier of the discrimination pyramid, lowering the bar for the harsher acts that follow.
Comments
2 responses to “Debates are not neutral”
The VPL has posted a strong message that it in no way endorses this event (Meghan Murphy’s). It states categorically that it does not agree with the views of the Feminist Current. I agree with you that ‘Debates Are Not Neutral’. However, because of Canada’s democratic values on which Freedom Of Speech (and intellectual freedom) is based, the VPL is placed in a quandary. On the one hand, it must uphold our democratic values and on the other hand, it emphatically does NOT agree with Ms Murphy’s expressed views. By stating, as it did, its philosophical and intellectual distancing from her presence & views at an event ‘hosted’ in their halls, the VPL feels that it has said/done enough. I agree with you: ‘This is not enough! Too much harm has already been done.
Their words say they do not endorse this event, and disagree with the views of Meghan Murphy. Their actions, however, demonstrate otherwise – and in the end it’s what people do that matters more than what they say.
By choosing to give Meghan Murphy a platform, by choosing to associate their name with her legitimizing her, by choosing to give her the resources she needs to distribute her message, they are in part responsible for what follows. Which is more people that feel they can discriminate against trans folk.
I don’t think freedom of speech and democratic values are endangered when a venue decides that they do not want to be used to distribute hate speech. That person won’t be arrested for their views, which is what freedom of speech is about, but they might have to spread their message on their own dime instead of the public purse or at a different venue. Institutions decline to host people all the time – for instance, try hosting a nudist event at a public library even though some public nudity is legal. It won’t fly. There’s a double standard when it comes to transphobic vitriol, where the public comes to the defense of transphobes under the guise of their rights being under threat.
I don’t think we would be having this debate where we talking about a Neo-Nazi spreading anti-Semitic remarks. I think that we even struggle with this when it comes to trans folk shows how people still regard trans folks as an aberration, rather than another normal manifestation of diversity.