Josh Dehaas: Don't ban "globalize the intifada," just enforce the law
Canadian Jews are being terrorized and harassed. And we can stop this by getting police to use the lawful authorities they already possess.
By: Josh Dehaas
Many Jewish people have warned since October 7, 2023, that when protesters chant “globalize the intifada,” they’re calling for blood. While “intifada” is often translated from Arabic to “uprising,” for many Jews it sparks memories of the bombings of pizza shops and nightclubs during the historical periods known as the First and Second Intifadas. Jewish people warn that those calling to “globalize the intifada” aren’t calling for protest, but are encouraging terrorist attacks worldwide. They say that to globalize the intifada is to do what a terrorist did when he rammed pedestrians and stabbed worshippers outside a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur, killing three, and what Islamists did late last year when they gunned down 15 Jews celebrating Hanukkah in Sydney.
The premier of New South Wales, the Australian state where the attack occurred, has responded by saying that the state will ban the slogan “globalize the intifada.” Police in London to Manchester have said that they too will “take action” against those who use the slogan, and have already started making arrests. Conservative MP Roman Baber has proposed criminalizing the word “intifada.”
While I understand the urge to outlaw this fear-inducing slogan, and I agree that it’s often if not usually meant the way Jews hear it, banning it would be counterproductive. It would pose risks to our Western liberal-democratic value of freedom of speech while giving us a false sense of security that we’ve actually done something to stop terrorism.
Let’s start with the risk to free speech. Banning any slogan is a content-based restriction, i.e. targeting an idea or message as opposed to a harmful form of speech or the expression’s direct physical consequences. In a free society, while limits on harmful forms of expression or direct physical consequences of speech may be fair game, we ought to always resist the urge to ban ideas or messages, no matter how vile. We abhor content-based restrictions for two reasons. First, if we give governments the power to jail us for expressing one idea, it becomes easier for governments to outlaw others. If today’s government can criminalize “globalize the intifada” because some see those words as a “call to violence,” tomorrow’s government can outlaw voicing support for the brave Israeli Defense Forces.
Second, censoring ideas prevents us from having the tough conservations that allow us to change minds. The only way to dissuade people from bad ideas is dialogue. It’s hard to dialogue with people you’ve silenced.
Some supporters of banning the slogan “globalize the intifada” say this is not a content-based restriction, but rather a limit on “incitement” or on “counselling terrorism.” But these three words, without more, do not amount to incitement or counselling. If an anti-Israel march organizer says “let’s go to the Jewish neighbourhood and globalize the intifada by smashing Zionist skulls,” there’s no question that’s incitement. If an imam says to a worshiper, “you must globalize the intifada by taking up arms for Hamas,” that’s counselling terrorism. But merely chanting “globalize the intifada” is different; we can’t be certain it’s a direct or specific threat of violence without more. I can’t picture most judges finding beyond a reasonable doubt that someone who used these words without more intended to coax specific people into committing specific acts of violence or joining a specific terror group. This is not what free speech hawks call a “true threat.”
Some will say that it’s important to censor this speech because it will prevent people from being recruited into terrorism. But it’s by no means a given that outlawing these words will mean fewer recruits. Weimar Germany censored Adolf Hitler’s speech in the 1930s, and it seemed to only make him popular. Canada’s 1980s hate speech prosecutions made neo-Nazis like James Keegstra and John Ross Taylor famous. Rather than stopping the spread of bad ideas, censorship can spread them further.
Others will say that banning this slogan targets not the threat of violence, but that of harassment and intimidation, which is a real problem. The truth is, we already have laws in place to deal with this that haven’t been well enforced. There’s no reason Jewish people should be subjected to hateful chants blaring through illegal loudspeakers, and our municipal leaders should insist that police start unplugging them. It’s also already a crime to block others from using streets and sidewalks, and police should make arrests.
Importantly, the focus on banning slogans will also create a false sense of security that we’ve actually done something. People may hear fewer offensive chants and politicians will be able to pat themselves on the back, but the people who believe in globalizing the intifada will still be here. Global News reports there are 450 Hamas members with ties to Canada. What’s being done to put terrorists behind bars or on planes out of Canada?
Instead of cracking down on extremist expression, how about ensuring the Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams are properly staffed, funded and focused on identifying and arresting those materially supporting Islamic terrorism? How about a running tally on the RCMP website showing how many terrorists have been charged? How about a portal on the CBSA website showing how many non-citizen terrorists are wanted or have been removed? Identifying, imprisoning and deporting actual terrorists would go a lot further to preventing terrorist violence than banning nasty slogans.
Josh Dehaas is Counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a legal charity dedicated to defending Canadians’ rights and freedoms.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter.Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com
Banning a specific phrase is both illiberal, and dumb. They'll just invent slight variations for those in-the-know.
Like overthrowing the government: "The Boogaloo", "big igloo", "large ice structure"... on and on.
Me, I'd be happy if we used the same standards that were used against the truck convoy....