Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Television coverage and censorship in Canada (in net.columbia??) Message-ID: <534@kontron.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 12:54:29 EST Article-I.D.: kontron.534 Posted: Mon Feb 24 12:54:29 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Feb-86 05:19:06 EST References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP> <814@alberta.UUCP> Distribution: net.politics Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 88 > > 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. 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? 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. > 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. 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? > 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. :-) 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. > 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.