ZGram - 11/18/2004 - "Hear, hear!"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

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]