WhatFinger


Censorship

Senator Duffy Emphasizes Value of Free Speech



Senator Mike Duffy March 30, 2010 "Mr. Speaker; Honourable Senators, "I rise to join my colleague, Senator Finley, in support of an inquiry into the state of freedom of speech in Canada.

Support Canada Free Press


"I share Senator Finley's love of freedom and his concern about the growing phenomena of censorship. "I approach the subject from the perspective of someone who, as a journalist for more than forty years, has used freedom of speech every day of my life, and has seen its essential role in keeping our democracy healthy. "And that's my first observation: freedom of speech is much bigger than just politics. "It's about our right as free men and women to express ourselves in any way we choose --not just politically, but socially, musically, artistically and through every other human endeavour. "Our freedom of expression is inextricably linked to our right to think for ourselves, to choose our place in the world, to talk back to the world, and even to fight against the world. "If you doubt that, ask any high school rock band why they do what they do! "So while it's often political speech that grabs the news headlines --we should never forget that millions of Canadians put freedom of speech into action every day, from film-makers to authors, to stand-up comedians, to advertising agencies to PTA meetings and Rotary Clubs. "Free speech is a thread of personal liberty that is woven into every part of Canadian society. "As a journalist, I exercised my freedom of speech every day. "And I was proud to offer a platform to many whose ideas were sometimes controversial. Senator Cools for example was often a guest on my program, as she fought for the rights of fathers. "And there are many other examples, involving both Senators and members of the "other place." "Free speech oils the gears of democracy, to keep them running smoothly, especially in times of great controversy. "Freedom of speech doesn't just help the system work; it invites people into the system; it gives them a seat at the table of national discussions. "It turns dissidents into participants; it invites people to opt in, not to drop out. "We sometimes take that for granted, but we shouldn't. "Because in countries where there is no freedom of speech, people who feel marginalized can't voice their grievances peacefully. "They don't have the safety valve of public debate in which to vent their passions. "It is no coincidence that many of the countries with the least freedom of speech are countries with the most political violence. "Some people say that if we ban offensive or rude opinions in Canada, society will be more harmonious. "But experience around the world shows that's just not how it works; and if we stop people from expressing themselves verbally, even in ways we find distasteful, they might be tempted to express themselves violently. "Free speech is our national safety valve! "I'm impressed by how many grassroots Canadians have joined the ranks of democratic, participatory journalism through blogs and YouTube and social media like Facebook and Twitter. "Journalism was once seen as a private club. There were enormous barriers to entry. "Ordinary people couldn't join in the national discussion. They were reduced to the role of spectators, with little chance to participate beyond shaking their fists at the TV set, or writing an occasional letter to the editor. "But now, anyone with a laptop --or a camera, --can help make the news and have their say, and through the power of their ideas, reach millions of people, and sometimes even change the world. "It's not just healthy for journalism, it's healthy for democracy too. And it's young people at the vanguard. "That's free speech. "Just ask the hard-liners of Iran, who are losing the battle of ideas against university students armed only with the power of Twitter. "Or consider Communist China. "During the events in Tienamin Square, our distinguished colleague Senator Munson provided Canadians with a window on that historic event. "Today, thanks to technology, instead of just a few valiant journalists, the main voice for reform in China is that country's 20 million bloggers, blowing the whistle on corruption and pressing for greater liberty. "So, even if censorship were morally correct, and it's not, it has been rendered obsolete by technology. "The Canadian Human Rights Commission, has shut down offensive websites here in Canada. "But persistent dissidents can simply move their websites to the United States or to Iceland, which has announced its plans to be the world's leading free speech jurisdiction. "And there's another paradox of censorship in the Internet age: out of the billions of pages on the Web, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre estimates that around 8,000 sites are serious purveyors of racism or anti-Semitism. "But by prosecuting these obscure Web sites, we give fringe, marginal ideas more attention and publicity than they would ever have received on their own. "There is a better way. "There may be thousands of hate sites, but there are millions of amateur bloggers out there ready to expose and rebut racist lies. "People like Ken McVay of British Columbia, a righteous Gentile who has spent thousands of hours meticulously rebutting Holocaust denial on the Internet. "He doesn't sue anyone. But he'll debate anyone. His website. www.nizkor.org, is now one of the most comprehensive archives of knowledge about the Holocaust anywhere. "Ken McVay hasn't created celebrity haters, like our censorship laws have. But he's been tremendously effective at rebutting racist lies, as a citizen blogger. "Of course, we all agree that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denials are odious ideas. But one of the problems with censorship is that the definition of what's offensive is open to political bias. "Maclean's columnist Mark Steyn was put on trial for a week in Vancouver for merely expressing his political views. "Ezra Levant and the Western Standard magazine were prosecuted for 900 days for illustrating a news story about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with eight of those cartoons. "Prosecuting those acts of journalism was clearly not the intention of Parliament when hate speech laws were enacted. "And the chilling effect has been much wider than just these and a few other notorious prosecutions. "How many other journalists have quietly decided to pull their punches on controversial issues, just to avoid a nuisance suit or human rights complaint? "How many TV and radio stations have avoided vigorous discussions of controversial issues, out of fear of censorship from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, acting on behalf of the CRTC? "(And why is it the CBC has an in-house Ombud to deal with questions of fairness, while private broadcasters have a different regeime?) " This not hypothetical; in 2004, a handful of complaints convinced the CRTC to yank the licence of CHOI-FM, one of Quebec's most popular radio stations. "Imagine that -- a government order that, had it been allowed to stand, would have destroyed dozens of careers, a successful business, all because of hurt political feelings. "That's how Hugo Chavez handles radio stations he doesn't like. But that's just not the Canadian way. "That's why non-partisan NGOs like PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have all condemned government censorship, and section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in particular. "Even anti-hate groups like B'nai Brith Canada have expressed grave reservations about human rights commissions, which were created to be a shield to protect Canadians and their rights, have instead become swords, used to destroy our rights. "B'nai Brith itself was the subject of just such a nuisance complaint. "My last observation is that as technology has enhanced our freedom of speech, Canadian courts have too. "In the 2008 Supreme Court case about defamation law, -- "WIC Radio versus Simpson." "The court unanimously ruled that: "[w]e live in a free country where people have as much right to express ridiculous and outrageous opinions as moderate ones." "And just last September, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal declared section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional. "Mr. Speaker, censorship was never a moral idea, but now it's impractical too. "Technology and human innovation came first, making the censors obsolete. "Our judges were the next to weigh in, reaffirming that censorship is a violation of our Charter values of free speech. "So now it's time for Parliament to modernize our laws, and remove the archaic censorship provisions. They are unwelcome remnants of a different era. "It is my hope that this Senate inquiry will begin the process by which Parliament brings our laws into synch with Canada's values: "Our love of freedom; "Our ability to handle differences of opinion peacefully; "Our national embrace of the technologies of communication; and "A clear message from the courts that Canada as a country must live up to our national promise of freedom for all. "As a journalist, I know the value of free speech. And as a Senator, I have a duty to protect it. Thank you."


View Comments

Guest Column -- Bio and Archives

Items of notes and interest from the web.


Sponsored