The Responsibility of the Individual

By Chris Carlin

Writers Ryan Moore, Adam Newlands and Chris Carlin challenge how we debate, what we consume, and how we can live greener lives

It’s time for a shameful confession. During my off-time, I watch YouTube videos, in particular, I love watching Vlogs. When you think of intelligent discourse, the Internet doesn’t usually claim iconic status, which isn't surprising, as the internet harbours some pretty insane ideas. As Bill Maher once put it: “That’s what’s so great about the Internet. It allows for pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle-jerk of pomposity.” However, even the most insane arguments could make you stop, if only for a moment, to evaluate your own opinion on any given issue.

During a debate between a religious Vlogger and an atheist Vlogger, it was asked whether or not adultery should be illegal.  Living in a largely secular society, it is unlikely that we will ever see criminal prosecution for adultery. This question did, however, cause me to consider just what the purpose of our legal system is, what it should be, and ultimately, what role the private citizen should play in maintaining a just society.

It’s easy enough for us to oppose outlawing infidelity. Yes, it can be widely agreed that breaking the terms of your marriage is a bad thing, but it’s enough that infidelity is one of the grounds for divorce. There is no need to seek prosecution for those whose crimes don’t produce any discernable consequences to society. It’s harder to keep this sentiment when considering an issue with much more emotional weight.

Hate speech legislation is a prime example. Section 13(2) of Canada’s Human Rights Act states that:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

This is one of the several examples of hate speech legislation in Canada. Violations of the hate speech laws are punishable by fines, and legislation varies between provinces.

You would have to be insane to oppose the sentiment behind these laws. Hateful propaganda and the endorsement of violence (direct or implied) against any group should be condemned and rebutted by any healthy society. The problem is not in the goal, it is in the action. The way to triumph over hatred and discrimination is through education and rational discourse. Where a government injunction does little to address the core of discrimination (and may even vindicate the views of the discriminator, as they view themselves as the truly oppressed), an educated and moral opposition to this will expose the weak foundations on which it stands. To do so should be considered our duty to our fellow humans.

Another example of the emotionally charged expansion of law is our narcotics policy. Granted, narcotics encompass many types of drugs. However, there are some (at the very least, marijuana) that are not of significant public concern. Instead of shouldering the responsibility for looking after your own body, we waste time and money with non-violent drug offenders.

The difficulty is in deciding where laws are necessary, and what can be left to individuals. It would be ridiculous for this question to come down to a morbid body count, or an exact number of wasted tax dollars. This is, after all, an issue mainly of principle, not degree.

The question I like to ask is: “Would the removal of this law result in a significant threat to the functioning of society?” For example, removing the penalty for not wearing a seatbelt wouldn’t pose much of a threat to our daily commute (though I’d be remiss if I didn’t recommend you wear one.) Removing the penalty for running a red light, on the other hand, deeply affects a fundamental component of mutually safe driving.

Those laws that inspire a “no” to the question deserve the utmost scrutiny. Law is most efficient, and most moral, when it allows the private citizen to make his or her own decisions. There may be some protections the establishment of a new law, or the strengthening of an existing one, may provide. The tradeoff for this is, however, a precious sense of personal responsibility. I’m not advocating indifference towards the issues these laws address, but rather, I am calling for private citizens to address these issues themselves.