Censure vs. censorship
Back in the days when I worked at the CBC, I recall booking the Canadian Civil Liberty's Association's general counsel Alan Borovoy and having him explain in a pre-interview the difference between censure and censorship. Censure--the free, public criticism of odious ideas--was a good thing in Borovoy's eyes. Censorship--the use of government organs to stifle freedom of expression--is not.
Seems like this basic distinction is not being taught in Canadian law schools. In fact, if we look at comment below from one of the four law students involved in the human rights complaints against Mark Steyn and Maclean's Magazine for an excerpt of Steyn's book America Alone, we see that censure has now become the evil, but censorship is fine, at least in practice given Daniel Simard sees no problem in using the tools of the state to force Maclean's to heel.
Simard writes:
Mr. Simard is now experiencing the power of censure. Why can't he see that he can use the same power of censure to rebut Mark Steyn's arguments one by one? All the censure does is cost Simard some embarrassment and unwanted notoriety. It won't cost him his job, his livelihood, or his conscience rights. It won't force him to pay a huge fine, or put into his privately owned publication words that he would never choose to publish on his own. Many Canadians disagree with Mark Steyn. I'm sure Simard would find a ready audience for his censure. But no, he seems to prefer to sneak over to file a complaint with government censors.
It's most interesting to note how LawIsCool shuts down the ability of people to put in opposing points of view in their comments section. That is their right. How would he feel if a human rights commission ordered LawIsCool to give equal time to opposing points of view after costing them a fortune in defending their right to close their comments section? He wouldn't like it I am sure. But I guess, to paraphrase George Orwell, some people are more equal than others and their rights to freedom of speech more equal than others.
Daniel Simard objects to being attacked, yet he seems to have no problem in attacking others and calling those who object to his tactics "crazed critics." He accuses his "foes" of being unscrupulous, when his blog has rewritten comments by other posters, and has called legitimate commentary "spam" when spam specifically refers to mass electronic advertising for Viagra and other such things.
Obviously, Simard's law school needs to teach its budding lawyers some basic definitions of words like censure and censorship. It also needs to give them a grounding in basic logical fallacies. The ad hominem attack is one of them.
I am much more concerned that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Commissions have agreed to hear their complaints. There may be a silver lining in this depressing cloud. Now a spotlight will be shined on how these commissions have abused freedom of speech and freedom of religion and conscience for a long time. There is a litany of cases. See here.
Most of the Christian defendants have been too small fry to get much media attention. Catholic Insight Magazine is the latest to bear the brunt of human rights complaints. This small-circulation magazine does not have the same resources as Maclean's. Some Christian defendents, like Scott Brockie, have ended up with legal bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Please write your political representatives, both federal and provincial. Ask them to rein in human rights commissions. Don't let our precious freedoms be crushed. It's interesting to note that a former Auditor General wrote a scathing report about the Canadian Human Rights Commission back in 1998.
Too bad no one paid attention and did something. But then, they were mostly only going after Christians in those days, so who gave a hoot.
Seems like this basic distinction is not being taught in Canadian law schools. In fact, if we look at comment below from one of the four law students involved in the human rights complaints against Mark Steyn and Maclean's Magazine for an excerpt of Steyn's book America Alone, we see that censure has now become the evil, but censorship is fine, at least in practice given Daniel Simard sees no problem in using the tools of the state to force Maclean's to heel.
Simard writes:
Would Simard prefer to have no scrutiny as he and his team use government power to try to force a private publication to bend to their will? Would he like to be able to inform on people in secret the way people used to inform on their neighbors in Stalin's Soviet Union? Does he want to reserve all government levers to himself and people who agree with him and use all the punitive power of the state to censor opinion with which he disagrees?Moving on, as I’m sure you are all are aware, I am party to a human rights complaint waged against Maclean’s magazine for the publication of an article written by Mark Steyn. Because of this, I have been one of the hot topics in the blogging world, and as a result of this and some of my posts, I have subjected our site and staff to increased scrutiny, censure and attack.
I want you all to know that I had no intention of dragging lawiscool into my personal disputes. Admittedly, I underestimated the unscrupulousness of my frantic foes and lacked the foresight necessary to obviate lawiscool’s subjection. I am grateful that you all are bearing with me and supporting me in my right and privilege to convey my messages through our blog. I also want you all to know that I grappled with the thought of excluding posts related to my dispute, but, rather than accede defeat to my crazed critics I decided it would be unjust to restrict the publication of fair and reasonable commentary.
Mr. Simard is now experiencing the power of censure. Why can't he see that he can use the same power of censure to rebut Mark Steyn's arguments one by one? All the censure does is cost Simard some embarrassment and unwanted notoriety. It won't cost him his job, his livelihood, or his conscience rights. It won't force him to pay a huge fine, or put into his privately owned publication words that he would never choose to publish on his own. Many Canadians disagree with Mark Steyn. I'm sure Simard would find a ready audience for his censure. But no, he seems to prefer to sneak over to file a complaint with government censors.
It's most interesting to note how LawIsCool shuts down the ability of people to put in opposing points of view in their comments section. That is their right. How would he feel if a human rights commission ordered LawIsCool to give equal time to opposing points of view after costing them a fortune in defending their right to close their comments section? He wouldn't like it I am sure. But I guess, to paraphrase George Orwell, some people are more equal than others and their rights to freedom of speech more equal than others.
Daniel Simard objects to being attacked, yet he seems to have no problem in attacking others and calling those who object to his tactics "crazed critics." He accuses his "foes" of being unscrupulous, when his blog has rewritten comments by other posters, and has called legitimate commentary "spam" when spam specifically refers to mass electronic advertising for Viagra and other such things.
Obviously, Simard's law school needs to teach its budding lawyers some basic definitions of words like censure and censorship. It also needs to give them a grounding in basic logical fallacies. The ad hominem attack is one of them.
I am much more concerned that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the B.C. Human Rights Commissions have agreed to hear their complaints. There may be a silver lining in this depressing cloud. Now a spotlight will be shined on how these commissions have abused freedom of speech and freedom of religion and conscience for a long time. There is a litany of cases. See here.
Most of the Christian defendants have been too small fry to get much media attention. Catholic Insight Magazine is the latest to bear the brunt of human rights complaints. This small-circulation magazine does not have the same resources as Maclean's. Some Christian defendents, like Scott Brockie, have ended up with legal bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Please write your political representatives, both federal and provincial. Ask them to rein in human rights commissions. Don't let our precious freedoms be crushed. It's interesting to note that a former Auditor General wrote a scathing report about the Canadian Human Rights Commission back in 1998.
Too bad no one paid attention and did something. But then, they were mostly only going after Christians in those days, so who gave a hoot.
Labels: freedom of speech, Mark Steyn, religious freedom
Links to this post:
Create a Link
« Home