Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!ken
From: ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Television coverage and censorship in Canada (in net.columbia??)
Message-ID: <814@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 22:36:50 EST
Article-I.D.: alberta.814
Posted: Thu Feb 20 22:36:50 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Feb-86 01:16:00 EST
References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Distribution: net.politics
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 58
Keywords: Canada, TV, censorship


	Dear Readers, in the continuing saga of net.politics we have two 
protagonists battling it out over the issue: "Political censorship
in Canada - does it exist and does anyone really know?" If you're missed
the preceding episodes of this melodrama here is a capsule summary:

>>
>> Richard Snells argument that Zundel is a dispicable individual
>> and that he was convicted of trying to incite hatred
>>
>
> Clayton Cramers argument that no one should be convicted on the
> basis of their distateful beliefs
>

My 2 cents follows:

  Clayton, you misunderstand the point of the charge and the conviction. Richard
Snell has apparently fumbled the explanation so here's my attempt to set
the record straight. Zundel was not charged with "doing something distasteful".
Neither was he indicted for his beliefs. The charge leveled at him was 
something to the effect of "Trying to promote hatred".
  To convict him they had to prove: 

  	1) That what was he was saying was incorrect.
  	2) That he knew it was incorrect.
  	3) That his intent was to promote hatred against some group of people.

  As you can see, this law is not an attempt to supress something distasteful
but rather to outlaw something that is potentially damaging to the "health
of the society". The often used analogy is that of yelling fire in a crowded 
movie theatre, this is a clearly dangerous practice and should only be done
when the theatre is actually on fire - thus the necessity of proving 
statement 1.
  You can argue that this isn't as free as it could be, that it represses 
the individual - and you would be correct. But no society allows total
freedom for the individual. Total freedom would allow one to commit murder
without the state intervening or without it being obligated to attempt 
retribution (justice). In a totally free society there would be no traffic 
lights or speed limits. Clearly, some restrictions on personal freedoms are a 
necessary compromise for living in any large society. In Canada we've 
decided that promoting hatred against religious/racial/(or any other 
identifable groups), is a detriment to the society as a whole and should 
therefore be controlled.
   The only reasonable questions that you could ask of this law are:
"Does it restrict the freedoms of the individual too much?" and "Does this
law actually benefit the society enough to justify it?". Canadians have
decided NO (to the first question) and YES (to the second). You probably 
differ on this judgment but then you're entitled to your own opinions.
	As to whether Canada practices political censorship, that is not
at issue in the above case. But while we're on the topic, do you remember
good old Senator McCarthy? It seems to me that "those who live in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones"(:-))! If you have a real case of political 
censorship in Canada I'd be interested to hear it. I suspect however, that 
you were misled by Snells discourse, and I hope that my misleading diatribe 
clarifies the issue :-).
															Ken Hruday
													University of Alberta