ZGram - 11/18/2004 - "Hear, hear!"
zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
Fri Nov 19 15:59:46 EST 2004
Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever!
November 18, 2004
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
The article below has today's date, but please pretend I sent it to
you yesterday. I am trying to catch up on my Zgrams:
[START]
Do hate laws curb free speech?
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:39:44 GMT, in can.politics "Len McLaughlin"
<len at nospam.com> wrote:
Canada is changing but is it for the better? What's different about
BC or Concordia or UQAM ? What is the common denominator? Again when
I express concern as to where Canada is heading, it's this sort of
thing that I fear. In a previous post I said that our hate laws can
be more destructive to a free and healthy society than any Patriot
Act. Few agreed, while quick to fault the Americans, Parrish style.
I would say the article below backs that post.
-Len
Quotes-
"They are essentially asking that free speech, a bedrock principle
of democracy, be cast aside so there is no chance that anyone will
ever be offended by what they see or hear at public meetings. It is
nothing less than a request for speech codes that would effectively
silence all dissent at public board meetings."
"In fact, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association told the tribunal that
granting such a guarantee would create a "chilling effect" on free
speech in every public forum. The imposition of speech rules would
be unprecedented and result in fear-charged and litigious climates
where few would be willing to express their opinions."
''We can only hope that such destructive actions don't prevail. When
even one voice is shut down, we all lose.''
===================================
The freedom to be offended
Susan Martinuk
National Post
November 19, 2004
VANCOUVER - It's become a story that just won't go away.
After five years of public debate and four years of hellish court
battles, the Surrey, B.C., school board's infamous "book ban" (
ultimately judged not to be a book ban) is still being used by
opportunistic individuals as a means to evoke fundamental and
controversial changes in our culture.
The latest complaints surfaced this week in the ultimate Star
Chamber, a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Two women accused
the board of discrimination in allowing public discussion regarding
the books to descend into "homophobic, hate-filled rhetoric." This
rather generalized allegation is based on the equally non-specific
arguments that the board facilitated the discrimination by failing
to keep speakers on topic (as occurs at most public meetings) and
allowed "a poisonous atmosphere" to develop (as occurs at most
public meetings where the public is divided by emotional issues or
ideologies).
Consequently, they are demanding the usual (financial compensation)
and what would seem to be virtually impossible and utterly illogical
to everyone except members of human rights tribunals: a policy that
guarantees discrimination-free public meetings.
They are essentially asking that free speech, a bedrock principle of
democracy, be cast aside so there is no chance that anyone will ever
be offended by what they see or hear at public meetings. It is
nothing less than a request for speech codes that would effectively
silence all dissent at public board meetings.
In fact, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association told the tribunal that
granting such a guarantee would create a "chilling effect" on free
speech in every public forum. The imposition of speech rules would
be unprecedented and result in fear-charged and litigious climates
where few would be willing to express their opinions.
It's a sad day for democracy if conflicting ideas are to be
suppressed and free speech sacrificed to regulations, rules and
bans. Conflicting ideas are at the heart of any healthy democracy,
and free speech is the principle that allows people to even make a
request to limit others' public speech. But by making that request,
they reveal an intellectual bankruptcy that is incapable of
articulating legitimate support or reasons for their own ideals in a
debate. It is therefore a request that public consensus be gained by
default, not by virtue of debate and the interchange of ideas.
This request also makes it clear some members of our society have
become so spoiled by freedom that they no longer have any respect
for it.
True freedom of expression is a right that belongs to the
individual. The speaker is the offender, not the forum. In this
case, there were a few who allegedly spoke inappropriately, and
common sense dictates that a proper solution would involve dealing
with them rather than taking away the basic freedoms of the majority.
By attributing responsibility for individual remarks to meeting
organizers, they likely enhance the potential for monetary rewards
and the imposition of change on a broader base of society. More
importantly, it absolves the speaker of any responsibility for
inappropriate remarks and mistakenly imposes that personal
responsibility on meeting organizers.
Meeting organizers can't be held responsible for the public comments
of all who choose to speak. So if these changes are granted, it
won't be long before organizers determine that assessing public
opinion simply isn't worth the hassle and the potential liability.
Quite rightly, they will then impose their decisions by fiat and the
public will grow increasingly indifferent to public authorities as
it is left without a means of influencing policy.
Freedom of expression is lost when regulations and speech codes are
imposed, and freedom itself is lost if the public can't have access
to all ideas and use them to influence public decision. There is no
freedom when a minority group clings to its assertions as sacrosanct
and undebatable, and opposing views are suppressed. Purging the
information that is spoken in the public arena limits our choices to
an imposed set of ideas. This is not freedom, nor is it tolerance.
It's totalitarianism and its only product is a nation of zombies
with fixed smiles on their faces to mask their empty minds.
This foolishness is ultimately rooted in society's growing tendency
to politicize/over-politicize even the most benign comments, falsely
believing that words always have an insidious meaning and the
overwhelming power to foster hatred or offence. It postulates that
most people lack the ability to interpret the good and the bad in
public remarks without descending into hatred. In fact, those who
hold to this view think so little of our ability to recognize
stupidity in public remarks that they are willing to impose speech
codes to censor what is said and heard.
We can only hope that such destructive actions don't prevail. When
even one voice is shut down, we all lose.
© National Post 2004
[END]
More information about the Zgrams
mailing list