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: <819@alberta.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 16:55:57 EST Article-I.D.: alberta.819 Posted: Wed Feb 26 16:55:57 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 18:44:59 EST References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP> <814@alberta.UUCP> <534@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday) Distribution: net.politics Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Lines: 157 I hope that you'll consider this "hot air" from northern Canada to be a refreshing change from the arctic air we've been sending you all winter :-). >> ... 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 theater, this is a clearly dangerous practice and should only be done >> when the theater is actually on fire - thus the necessity of proving >> statement 1. In article <534@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes (with reference to the above section): > >The first use of this argument *I've* ever seen was in an opinion by a U.S. >Supreme Court justice. He was arguing in favor of a law that prohibited >distributing anti-draft literature during World War I! Have I made my point >about the dangers of giving the government too much discretion in deciding >what is dangerous? You state the obvious. No one has argued that the government should have too much discretion in deciding what is dangerous and that is why Zundel was taken directly to court and NOT directly to prison. It was the legal system that made the decision to convict - the decision (in theory) could have been made in Zundels favour. I believe that even in the U.S. the court system can decide against the government. This "impartial" legal system is essential in any democracy since ALL governments can be expected to act in their own best interests and this is sometimes (usually) to the detriment of the people. The implied similarity between anti-draft legislation and the Zundel case is flawed. > >The Soviet Union uses similar reasoning to lock up people for "slandering >the Soviet state" -- and we all recognize how dangerous giving that much >decision making authority to the state is. > Ah! The obligatory comparison to the Soviet Union, hasn't this tactic gotten a little trite :-( ? Your comparison lacks credibility. I don't think that verifiable truth is one of the criteria for imprisoning people in the Soviet Union. Central to this case, and to the interests of our society, is the belief that the truth should not be repressed. >> ... In Canada we've >> decided that promoting hatred against religious/racial/(or any other >> identifiable groups), is a detriment to the society as a whole and should >> therefore be controlled. > >Oh? You prohibit Marxists from distributing literature that calls for >"class struggle"? People can't write articles criticizing the practice >of trade unionism? I believe the Canadian law only prohibits promoting >hatred against groups based on race, religion, and national origin. Why >not the Marxists as well? Because Marxists do not form an identifiable group, neither do accountants or bank tellers. An "identifiable" group is one which - *surprise* - can be readily identified. Skin colour, and other racial characteristics can be easily identified as would the mode of dress of various religious groups. Note also that women (and men) form identifiable groups as well. I'm not at all sure what you're saying in the above passage. To my knowledge, there is no restrictions against Marxists distributing literature or against criticising the trade union movement. Any instance of this occurring would clearly be political censorship. >> 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. > >Clearly, human rights are a national decision. And if the people of a >central European power decide that exterminating Jews maximizes the benefit >to society without too much of a law of individual liberties, that MUST >be OK. :-) ... Can human rights be "logically" derived? The very essence of the term "rights" is ambiguous - whether you're prepared to admit it or not, your definition of what is a "human right" is a consensus definition from your society. What criteria do we use to decide what is a human right? Does this criteria take into account the society, or can we define "Human rights" in a vacuum. Pardon me while I take a little digression. I suspect that if the common man/woman had to come to a definition of human rights they would probably resort to the old biblical principle - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is a good general principle for forming a set of human rights but it needs a two additions. The first would be that the taking of a human life is the only fundamental right that can't be decided upon by societal consensus. This principle probably wouldn't be needed since in 99.9999% of the cases it's covered by the "Do unto others principle". The only reason that I include it is the curious, and short lived, case of the "Jonestown society". The second amending principle would be to allow any and all additional liberties that don't seriously compromise the first two. From this definition it should be clear that "human rights" is a relative thing. Before you start believing that I condone the Soviet system, I think that it is possible to "judge" whether a society is fair in its application of human rights. Specifically we can judge whether a society is violating its own "unwritten rights code". Consider for instance, a fundamentalist Islamic society. Lets apply principle 1. As a thinking member of that society I ask myself, "Would I like to have Judaism, or Christianity forced on me?" - "No", "therefore we can't impose Islam on other religious groups." This also applies in political systems. Hence not only communists would be elected and be allowed to represent Russians. Since few people like to have their choices restricted, the first principle should guarantee freedom of choice in almost all areas - including politics and religion. Now, back to the main arguement ... Any suggestion that "fundamental human rights" can be defined without reference to theological, political, or metaphysical dogma - or even ignoring good old, practical societal consensus - is ludicrous to the extreme! > ... Seriously, when human rights are reduced to something that can >be decided by a purely democratic decision, you have to watch out that you >don't fall down the slippery slope to totalitarianism. The "slippery slope to totalitarianism" starts the moment that you pay someone to make your decisions for you. The case of genocide cited above is due, NOT to democratic consensus, but to independent government decision. The above society was not open to the free interchange of ideas since there was a prevailing sense of fear and opposing the government meant death or some equally unsavory fate. Thus no democratic opinion could be obtained and even if it could it wouldn't have been acted on. > >> 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 > >I wasn't arguing that our own house was completely in order. Someone on >the net tried to claim that there was no political censorship in Canada. >No, they just lock people up for publishing books that get people angry. > To beat a dead horse - I am not aware of any cases of political censorship in Canada. I am arguing that the Zundel business is not an instance of "political" censorship. The only credible case you could have for calling it political censorship is if you define all censorship to be "political" - then I might agree with you. Ken Hruday University of Alberta