In Canada and the United States, we take freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest rather seriously. Obviously, not everyone’s going to agree on what’s a proper cause or the best way to express a point but a consensus should be reachable on the need for minimal state interference.
It could be argued, for example, that for a cartoonist to lampoon Muhammad or Jesus or any other prominent religious figure would be a disrespectful way of making a point. The newspaper or magazine’s publisher might decide then to not publish that cartoon. Furthermore, if there’s a clear policy about such matters, it might also stand to reason that the cartoonist’s employment could be in jeopardy.
Certainly, people could debate the point the cartoonist was trying to make or the manner in which he made it and, in turn, whether the publication had responded in a reasonable way.
However, once the government starts demanding that the cartoonist be fired or demanding that magazines automatically fire any “sons of b*****s” who dare to draw such images, it becomes a whole other conversation. While other cartoonists may not necessarily embrace the original cause behind the offending image, it would be totally understandable to see cartoonists en masse — and maybe even others, too — draw such images as a protest to an overreaching, heavy-handed government response.
Granted, it’s not a perfect parallel to the current furor over U.S. President Donald Trump’s reaction to NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem. Respect for religion may not be expected in a pluralistic society like Canada or the U.S., but respect for country — and by extension, the flag and anthem — is deemed to be a reasonable expectation.
Get breaking National news
Many people, in both the U.S. and Canada, may share the opinion that one should stand during the national anthem (although not when watching at home, I suppose) and that it’s the wrong time and place for a protest. Two polls out this week confirm that, but also show that there’s significant discomfort with the idea of players getting fired or the president demanding such an outcome.
Taking a knee does not in any way disrupt the performance of the anthem or the game itself, but it gets noticed. Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s original anthem-kneeling protest certainly got attention, and he had some very specific issues he was trying to address.
WATCH: Are politics the reason why Colin Kaepernick remains a free agent?
What’s odd about how Trump’s abrupt and aggressive insertion into the debate, though, is the fact that Kaepernick first knelt in protest over a year ago and is no longer in the NFL. Few players joined him at the time and only a handful were still doing it. And frankly, the league can decide for itself how best to deal with it.
Trump may see himself as a righteous man on a soapbox, but he is the president of the United States. He is the government. So when the state starts telling private citizens how and whether to protest and starts telling private business how to act in response, it’s unjustified state intrusion. A unified response that tells the government to butt out is certainly reasonable and warranted in the circumstances.
Trump could certainly offer his opinion that people should stand during the anthem, but leave it at that. I’m sure if someone were to ask political leaders their opinions on things I’ve written or said about them, they might be inclined to say I’m wrong or out to lunch or a damned idiot. Once they start demanding I be fired, though, that would represent a real chill on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
It should be an obvious demarcation. People don’t have to like or agree with your protest, but the state should leave you alone.
Rob Breakenridge is host of “Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge” on Calgary’s NewsTalk 770 and a commentator for Global News.
Comments