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: Censorship in Canada, Freedom of Speech and Zundel
Message-ID: <833@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Mar-86 23:46:23 EST
Article-I.D.: alberta.833
Posted: Thu Mar 13 23:46:23 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 23:43:12 EST
References: <1611@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 55

In article <1611@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bartok.DEC writes:
>
> numerous excellent examples of the abuse of censorship
>
>
  Brian, your cases of Galileo, Copernicus, and the Scopes "monkey trials" 
are all excellent examples of the abuses and dangers of censorship. However,
what you intended to prove by them is somewhat obscure. In fact, your 
examples seriously misrepresent the case and law, under which Zundel was 
charged.  To recap his case we should recall that the prosecutor had to 
prove that the content of his pamphlets was false. In addition, it had to 
be shown that he was capable of knowing them to be false and that his 
intent was to arouse hatred against a particular group. The prosecution
failing on any one of these points might have acquited Zundel.

  *If* any of the above cases could have been charged under this hate 
incitement law (and they couldn't have) then it should be clear that each
of them would have been acquited 3 times over. It should also be clear
that this particular law can only be "stretched" so far, thus it isn't a 
broad license for the government to censor anything as it chooses. Your
three cases prove only that censorship has a great potential for harm and
I have to agree that in nearly all cases it is harmful. But that doesn't 
mean that it is always harmful in all possible cases.

  Time for a digression. There appears to be a pattern in your examples; 
it is clear that all of them arise from persecution by a state based in 
religion. Not that religion is always the culprit. Rather, it happens 
when the government no longer serves the people. Whether the government 
serves God, the ideals of Marxism, or to further the supremacy of the 
aryan race, or even a dictator, abuse of human rights is bound to occur 
(whether or not there is a law or constitution that says it shouldn't). 
Yes, governments are bounded by laws - but it is also the case that 
governments make the laws. Censorship in the above cases is a symptom 
not the problem. Thus trying to prevent censorship does not address the 
real question, and would only give marginal comfort to the victimized
citizens.

  In another vein, let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that 
it is wrong for someone to impose restrictions on civil liberties (namely 
your right to persue happiness and to freedom of movement)? Prisons are 
full of people who have had their liberties deprived them and this is all 
done in the name of "punishment" or "rehabilitation". Yet the constitution 
should guarantee them the right to live where they like and to come and 
go as they please. Clearly this principle has been compromised. Why? One 
answer is that these people had abused their freedoms by using them 
irresponsibly. Everyone should have "all" possible human rights but
what happens when these rights are abused? What do we do then?

  I agree that the ideal society is one where there are no exceptions
to human rights, but unfortunately, you need ideal people to form such
a society. Until that day comes (I'm not going to hold my breath :-), we
must occationaly compromise what we normally consider to be "human rights".

                                                Ken Hruday
                                          University of Alberta