Just imagine waiting at an office for an appointment and having nothing to do. You decide to pick up and read a magazine while you patiently wait. To your amazement, the magazine begins declaring very shocking allegations such as, ‘God hates fags!’, ‘Muslims are terrorists’, ‘Women belong in the kitchen’, and so much more. Would this language offend you? In addition, how would you feel? A similar scenario was presented when a group of Muslim petitioners commenced protesting the Canadian magazine giant, Maclean’s, as well as a particular column written by famous author, Mark Steyn, due to the Islamophobic rhetoric within (The Agenda with Steve Paikin). Furthermore, both parties by coincidence were being interviewed by Steve Paiken on TVO’s, ‘The Agenda’, which resulted in a hectic debate. Each party was allocated a segment with identical time constraints to voice that side of the argument and then aggregated at the end to debate head on. Consequently, the principle stance of Mark Steyn was in support of free speech, while the petitioners were slowly, maybe even unintentionally, attempting to implement limitations on free speech as well as seeking an apology and/or their own column in Maclean’s Magazine. Regardless of human differences and perceptions, the concept of liberty is the fundamental principle of most democratic systems of government, including our own, and in accordance to John Stuart Mill’s framework, castigates the idea of state intervention, rendering government interference towards the Maclean’s case unnecessary. Firstly, John Mill’s framework of liberty is left to much interpretation and therefore must be explained in additional detail to understand the role of liberty through more than just the self, but the society around us.
…show more content…
In the case of Maclean’s situation, John Mill would argue that the state does not have the right to intervene amongst the actions of either Mr. Steyn or Maclean’s due to the fact that neither of them had harmed anyone. In view of liberty, Mill had created a concept called, ‘The Harm Principle”, in order to outline the circumstances and limits of possessing liberty as well as use of power and is illustrated as such: That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (Mills 8). It is evident that at face value, the situation with Maclean’s should need no continuation, but the fact is that even Mill himself is unable to accurately gauge what harm is; Other than physical damage, the amount of harm or what kind of harm an individual may be experiencing is unquantifiable and thus creates the capacity for interpretation. The counter-argument on behalf of the Muslim law students [Petitioners] would most likely address the fact that the writings of Steyn generalize all Muslims and portray the Islamic image very negatively, therefore inducing harm towards Canadian minorities and other Muslims alike. Moreover, one of the petitioners named, Naseem Mithoowani, had spoken about how people like Mark Steyn use “Objective facts as a dressed up form of racism” (The Agenda) in order to speak their mind. The petitioners have clearly been offended by Steyn and Maclean’s, but are acting out more on emotions then they are on fact. The ideologies and beliefs of Mark Steyn are what initiated the majority of the Maclean’s situation, but Steyn himself believes …show more content…
A simple example of the tyranny of the majority is an article studied in tutorial for Political Science 1AA3. The article outlined how several universities across Canada were protesting abortion and how sensitive the subject was to students. The University of Waterloo also went as far to banning the protests . One thing this assignment showed was how the majority of people are able to manipulate the minority, but this does not make it justified. To connect this point of tyranny of the majority to Canada, observe the outcome of the Maclean’s case. Mark Steyn had been proven innocent and that he stayed within his freedoms of speech to do so (CTV News). As a society we have to understand that all sides of an argument must be taken into consideration as well as understanding that humans naturally get
In the case of Maclean’s situation, John Mill would argue that the state does not have the right to intervene amongst the actions of either Mr. Steyn or Maclean’s due to the fact that neither of them had harmed anyone. In view of liberty, Mill had created a concept called, ‘The Harm Principle”, in order to outline the circumstances and limits of possessing liberty as well as use of power and is illustrated as such: That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (Mills 8). It is evident that at face value, the situation with Maclean’s should need no continuation, but the fact is that even Mill himself is unable to accurately gauge what harm is; Other than physical damage, the amount of harm or what kind of harm an individual may be experiencing is unquantifiable and thus creates the capacity for interpretation. The counter-argument on behalf of the Muslim law students [Petitioners] would most likely address the fact that the writings of Steyn generalize all Muslims and portray the Islamic image very negatively, therefore inducing harm towards Canadian minorities and other Muslims alike. Moreover, one of the petitioners named, Naseem Mithoowani, had spoken about how people like Mark Steyn use “Objective facts as a dressed up form of racism” (The Agenda) in order to speak their mind. The petitioners have clearly been offended by Steyn and Maclean’s, but are acting out more on emotions then they are on fact. The ideologies and beliefs of Mark Steyn are what initiated the majority of the Maclean’s situation, but Steyn himself believes …show more content…
A simple example of the tyranny of the majority is an article studied in tutorial for Political Science 1AA3. The article outlined how several universities across Canada were protesting abortion and how sensitive the subject was to students. The University of Waterloo also went as far to banning the protests . One thing this assignment showed was how the majority of people are able to manipulate the minority, but this does not make it justified. To connect this point of tyranny of the majority to Canada, observe the outcome of the Maclean’s case. Mark Steyn had been proven innocent and that he stayed within his freedoms of speech to do so (CTV News). As a society we have to understand that all sides of an argument must be taken into consideration as well as understanding that humans naturally get