The Shotgun Blog
« A little comic relief... | Main | You can pry away my duck from my cold dead hands »
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Column the London Free Press Would Not Print
My friend, Rory Leishman, is a social conservative. Given my libertarian tendencies, it isn't surprising we clash on many topics having to do with censorship. My own view is basically that consenting adults should be free to do what they want. His is.... considerably different, and yet we remain friends.
Rory writes a column that is published bi-weekly in the London Free Press and many other papers in Canada. They declined to publish his latest, however. Here is a message he sent to his friends, along with the column itself. I don't think I will want to see the show he mentions, but I am happy to have the Grand Theatre try whatever it wants, so long as paying customers have some idea of what they are in for and so long as they don't try to get me to pay for it through my taxes (hah!). Rory disagrees.
Dear All:
The London Free Press has decided not to run the following column that was slated for publication on Tuesday, October 24. I have received the following explanation from an acting editorial-page editor at the paper:
"In consultation with (Free Press Editor in Chief) Paul Berton, we've held your column for Tuesday. It would appear from your brief description that you hadn't gone to the play, and must have been relying on the reports, reviews etc that Sonja Smits was "naked" on stage - which she was. However, having talked to people who did go and weren't scandalized, comparing that to the goings on in a strip club is simply over the top."
It's true that I did not attend the play. Indeed, I have no wish to do so, but I disagree with the editor's judgment in refusing to run the column. Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Rory
Here is the censored column:Following the tawdry example of theatres in England and the United States, London’s Grand Theatre is luring customers with a play featuring a lead actress who appears stark naked on the stage. Count this as another sign of the escalating degradation of our Judeo-Christian civilization.
Just a few years ago, such a shameless performance would not have occurred even in one of the city’s seedier strip clubs, because the offending actress and the club’s managers would have been liable to be charged under section 167 of the Criminal Code with presenting “an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation in a theatre” – an indictable offence punishable by up to two years in prison.
What has happened in the meantime? Has Parliament repealed section 167 of the Criminal Code? Not at all. The law is still on the books. The problem in this as in so many other instances is that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to uphold the law as enacted and originally understood.
That’s fine with the management of the Grand Theatre. One wonders what they might stoop to next. Perhaps some day soon, they will strew the stage with mattresses and invite naked volunteers from the audience to engage in group sex.
That’s inconceivable, you say? Alas, no. In last December’s ruling in Labaye, the Supreme Court of Canada decreed that notwithstanding the law on indecency in the Criminal Code, there is nothing inherently illegal about the presentation of group sex in a public theatre provided only that the audience receives fair warning of what to expect.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote the reasons for the judgment of the Court in Labaye. In describing the sexual antics at issue in this case, she related that people lay on mattresses scattered about the floor and engaged “in acts of cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio and penetration. On several occasions observed by the police (undercover officers), a single woman engaged in sex with several men, while other men watched and masturbated.”
McLachlin and the majority of her colleagues held that there is nothing “immoral, indecent or obscene” about such conduct within the meaning of the law, because the presentation of an orgy of group sex before a willing audience is not of a nature that “causes harm or presents a significant risk of harm to individuals or society by predisposing others to anti-social behaviour that is incompatible with the proper functioning of society.”
This ruling was entirely unprecedented. It had no basis in either the plain language of the Criminal Code or the previous judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. In effect, McLachlin and her colleagues proceeded on their own in Labaye to overturn the law on indecency in Canada.
That’s fine with libertarians. They argue that people who are offended by obscene displays of nudity on television or in movies and the theatre should change the channel and boycott the offending movies and theatrical performances.
There might be something to be said for this argument, if there were reason to believe that the public display of lewd behaviour has no adverse effects other than to demean and degrade those who engage and witness such spectacles.
But that, plainly, is not the case. Ever more flagrant exhibitions of sexual promiscuity have coarsened our entire culture to the point that many husbands and wives who would not have dreamed of entering a relatively tame strip club 30 years ago now sit complacently through a far more graphic presentation of lewd conduct in the Grand Theatre.
And that’s not the worst of it. Only the naïve can suppose that there is no connection between a rising tolerance for obscenity and the epidemic of fornication, adultery and divorce that has undermined the stability of that most fundamental of social institutions, the natural family.
What can be done? There is one obvious remedy: Decent citizens can make a more concerted effort to support principled politicians who combine a sincere and enlightened compassion for all their constituents with a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and a firm determination to combat the usurpation of legislative power by the amoral and transgressive elitists who predominate on the Supreme Court of Canada.
Digression: What is it about so much nudity, that it seems to involve females? Are we still living is such a male-dominated society, or is it just that female bodies make for better art than do male bodies?
For more information about Rory Leishman's views on judicial activism, see his book.
Posted by EclectEcon on October 24, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834bf346b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Column the London Free Press Would Not Print:
Comments
A very good column by Rory Leishman. Whatever happened to free expression that the media is always touting. Do I smell hypocrisy emanating from the so called "London Free Press?" Their name is a misnomer.
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-10-24 9:23:49 PM
Check that out. They allow indecency but will not allow free speech. We are not far from Sodome and Ghomorreah.
God have pity on us.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-10-24 10:49:21 PM
I have never met Rory Leishman but we have exchanged emails over the years dating back to when he parted company as an Editor at the LFP.
The latest exchange was this past October 4th when I praised a piece the FP had published a day or so earlier.
I mentioned that I expected to see a flood of negative Letters to the Editor as a result of the piece thereby mirroring the left view of the Editorial Board.
I am not surprised that the piece above was censored.
The Libertarian and conservative voices of Michael Coren and Karen Selick have long ago disappeared from the pages of the LFP under Susan Muszak, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Paul Berton.
It is a curious situation that the LFP owned by Quebecor, owners of the Sun Chain have become a political correct producer of Liberal left wing mush.
I am a longtime subscriber of the London Free Press ( the sole daily in London proper, but with a fairly wide regional coverage ).
Why do I still subscribe to a paper tilting to the left?
Because I know many people in the region covered by the LFP,
therefore, mainly for the obituaries and hopefully sometimes to read a conservative view from a Rory Leishman.
London Free Press, now censoring speech.
Shame!
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2006-10-25 12:24:44 AM
As usual, people are trying to turn this into an issue of those dastardly liberals censoring free speech. It is nothing of the sort.
This is about a private company exercising its own freedom to publish whatever the hell it wants to publish. No private newspaper should be under any obligation whatsoever to publish everything that is submitted to them.
If they choose not to publish an absurdly negative review by an individual who did not even bother to witness the performance, why should we be upset?
Posted by: bob | 2006-10-25 3:33:58 AM
Its a voice that won't be heard because someone disagreed with what he had to say. The fact he didn't attend the performance is irrelevant in that he was not reviewing the play, only the fact there was nudity in it. This is a suppression of free speech, pure and simple, and, yes, we all should be upset about it.
Posted by: MikeP | 2006-10-25 4:24:01 AM
In the history of western civilization, a free press means they are free to publish what they want without government censorship, it doesn't mean you are free to force them to publish what you want. I fail to see how you are going to succeed at saving western civilization if you don't even know what it's about.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-10-25 5:00:00 AM
I worked on the Halifax Chronicle Star as a copy boy when I was 15 or so, this was the Newspaper founded
by the great Journalist and Editor Joseph Howe. During the several years I was there met some of the most outstanding editors and reporters in North America. "censorship" was not acceptable to the editors or publisher in 1945, but censorship was applied by the Federal Government to certain "war stories" and sometimes to casuality lists from the War.There were no Journalism Schools in those days, Reporters started out as copy boys or proof
readers. I have been concerned for some years of how the Journalism Schools of Canada have been infected by the left wing and the socialist horde
for some time. Kings College Dalhousie University
is a sad example, whose students are subjected to socialist drivel on a daily basis, which later appears in the local Daily News who hired a "professor" from Kings some years ago. A sad refelection on the Nova Scotia media where freedom of the press was established by Joseph Howe in 1839. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-10-25 6:04:02 AM
Of course this is not a free speech issue, it is a free press issue. I.e. the press is able to print, or not print, whatever it wants.
Posted by: Johan I Kanada | 2006-10-25 7:54:40 AM
Right. The Press is able to print or not print whatever it wants, but in the Picture Province of New Brunswick, the "press" is owned by a single corporation who can and do decide what is printed
and in fact direct the editorial polices of ther newspapers to reflect their Business point of view
whatever it happens to be at any given moment. But to conclude this, I cannot see how one can write a critical review of an event which one has not seen or observed first hand. Should have commenced his article with the words "guess what?" MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-10-25 8:12:43 AM
I may not have made my point about the cancellation of Leishman's piece clear enough.
It is more about the fact the London Free Press has gone from the conservative roots of Walter Blackburn, Editors Trestain and Heine, to to a left leaning politically correct feminist rag, that considers Liberal tainted MP's such as Joe Fontana as super stars, locally.
Even with all the corruption that took place in the Chretien government, when the crunch came at election time the editorial board supported the corrupt Liberal party.
Enough said.
The conservative viewpoint in the London paper is essentially dead.
I wonder if that was the motivation for Rory to go public elsewhere rather than the singular obvious fact that a hard hitting conservative conservative op-eds such a Leishman's are not welcome in the LFP.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2006-10-25 8:40:06 AM
It's encouraging to see that the more astute posters here can distinguish censorship from editorial decision-making, even if they seem rely in earnest on the maxim A.J. Liebling offered as a bitter jest:"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
That said, I think there more to this story than just the right of an editor to say no. Leishman is, after all, not some guy off the street or a random op-ed contributor. He's a regular columnist and a former editor at the paper. It is presumably understood at the LFP that he will be given free rein to air his opinions on a variety of subject, however unpopular those opinions might be. If the editors pull in those reins, it may not amount to censorship as the term is properly understood, but readers and other are entitled to ask questions and criticize the decision.
In this case, I think the criticisms are misplaced. Mr. Leishman may be entitled to his opinions, but he's also obliged to meet certain standards. For at least three reasons, this column doesn't cut it.
1. It's unprofessional. Columnists may be notorious for never letting a little thing like research get in the way of a good opinion, but if you're going to describe a performance as a sign of the degradation of Judeo-Christian civilization, you have a professional obligation to go and see the damn thing.
2. It contains factual errors. The notion that "just a few years ago" the performance would have led to criminal charges is not just laughable, it's absolutely false. Men and women have been appearing au naturel on stage for more than 30 years without legal consequence; to suggest that this practice is somehow a recent development that can be attributed to the perfidy of the SCC is not only silly, but it calls into question Mr. Leishman's credibility as a legal commentator.
3. It's defamatory. Mr. Leishman is entitled to his opinion about Ms. Smits's performance, but he crosses a line when he states or implies that she broke the law. The fact that he hasn't actually seen the performance aggravates the libel.
The column deserved to be spiked. And if Mr. Leishman feels he's been wronged or censored, he's free to resign on principle. Will he?
Posted by: truewest | 2006-10-25 8:48:22 AM
There happens to be another angle to this story. It is such an obvious angle that none have yet bothered to mention it, but I think it merits mentioning.
One of the (but not the only) reasons Western civilization has had such a head start in the area of a free press is because of the technological advance of the printing press in the early 15th century within Western civilization. Legal assurances are required as well but the printing press lowered the costs of publication. The lowered costs meant that those without large scale wealth (relative to before the time of the printing press) could now compete on a more level field. Ideas different from the establishment at that time began to flourish.
I believe that we are at the beginning of the next wave in the freedom of publication. As with the first wave, so this wave is being driven by new technology. That new technology is that part of the Internet known as the World Wide Web. Bloggers such as EclectEcon are able to deliver to us what the LFP chose not to.
Just for the record, I agree with those who state that the LFP is free to exercise its ownership rights in determining what it will and will not publish. However, I also agree that there seems to be an establishment mentality in much of the Canadian press that is not at all representative of all the Canadian people. This establishment has different ideas than the one in the 15th century, but it is, nonetheless, another establishment.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-10-25 9:18:27 AM
It should be obvious to all by now that even supreme court justices have succumbed to the addictive influence of sexual promiscuity subtly reflected in their rulings on the subject of pornography.
How else could they or other elitists possibly attend such tantalizing performances without prejudice?
Isn't it a wonder that any elementary student is able to distinguish pornography while academic legislators and judicial appointees cannot?
Appears to me that in order to acquire respectability, deviate sexual expression must be presented in the sphere of normality and duly legalized to squelch any sense of moral guilt rather than loathing.
How pathetic our culture has become and we haven't reached bottom yet!
Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-25 9:34:57 AM
Joe Molnar:
It doesn't look like the people of London are that crazy about Joe Fontana.
It is important people pay attention to what the different parties stand for.
The ideologies are much different, more so now than previously, especially on Social issues.
The Conservatives stand for strengthening the family and putting back the moral fiber which has been eroded.
The Liberal Left stands for anything goes to get elected.
Sadly that includes some extremely controversial policies, we know what they are.
They also they aren't interested in getting tough on crime by voting down every attempt by the Conservatives to pass new tougher laws.
Conservatives are the only hope for improvement but they need a majority.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-25 11:27:53 AM
I have read with interest the many comments on my abortive column. Before laying the matter to rest, I would like to make a few brief points.
First, on the question of censorship: I agree that the Editor in Chief of The London Free Press has every right in law to refuse to print anything by me or any other contributor.
However, I question his judgment in refusing to run my column in this instance inasmuch as it has been the longstanding policy of The London Free Press to encourage lively debate on a wide-range of issues on the editorial pages. To this end, the editors of the paper have traditionally given columnists free rein within the limits of propriety to express their personal opinions on issues of lively public concern, even when those opinions conflict with the editorial position of the newspaper. In my more than 30 years with the newspaper, I have often stated intensely controversial views, but have had only two columns spiked.
In the case of my latest aborted column, I appreciate that it has drawbacks. In particular, I erred in suggesting that “just a few years ago” an actress would have been charged with indecency for appearing stark naked on the stage. Time flies. The courts of Canada have sanctioned such performances since the 1970s by abandoning the original understanding of the ban in the criminal code on the presentation of “an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation in a theatre.”
I note that one critic on this blog has suggested that I libeled the lead actress in the Grand Theatre production by having written in this column something that “states or implies that she broke the law.” In fact, I did not write any such thing. The whole point of the column was to demonstrate and deplore how the Supreme Court of Canada has legalized not just performances like hers, but also far more shameless exhibitions of group sex in a public theatre.
I welcome the vigorous debate that my column has evoked in the Shotgun Blog. And I regret that a similar free exchange of opinions on this subject is not allowed in The Free Press.
Posted by: Rory Leishman | 2006-10-25 11:48:26 AM
Rory,
You state clearly yourself that"it has been the longstanding policy of the London Free Press to encourage lively debate on a wide range of issues...
It is clear the LFP's reasoning for not running your editorial was the fact you did not even see the show.How can you can write a very strongly opinionated piece on a show you admit never seeing?It can only be based on hearsay as you have no firsthand knowledge of the extent and even context of the nudity.Sorry,but if I am to read of this,I would expect to hear from someone who was actually there and was witness to the act.
BTW,do you believe you will face any repercussions from the LFP for airing this in the blogosphere?
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-10-25 12:24:46 PM
ebt,
You claim the only important thing about the show was the nudity...What kind of bizarre statement is that?...How would you know if you haven't seen it either?
This show may have contained the most stirring solilique ever written in our history.It may have had a strong message against exploitation of women,but we'll never know because he didn't see it.He did however go on and on about the fact someone else told him you could see her titties.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-10-25 1:22:18 PM
Ultimately, you can vote with your dollars. If you don't like the censorship, then do not visit the links below and don't buy the the newspaper.
These two links (to the same story) mention nudity:
http://jam.canoe.ca/Theatre/2006/10/14/2024466.html
http://www.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=158468&x=articles&s=arts
This review does not mention nudity:
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/Entertainment/2006/10/16/2039915-sun.html
The http://www.grandtheatre.com/mainstageseries/mainstageseries.html link has a warning of Strong language, brief nudity and mature themes on the picture.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-10-25 2:05:56 PM
It is factual that nudity would have given a few people the "Vapours" in days gone by, that is the truth. What kind of publication would have a problem with the truth is the big question?
If a production contains a nude scene it would be a highlight to mention only because it is unusual,and hardly against the law. Hey, it may sell more tickets!
We live in an anything goes society as witnessed in Gay Pride Parades, and no laws are broken even though it's a disgraceful display of body parts.
No production can play nude scenes and not expect comments pro and con.
It doesn't look good on the LFP. Is there another agenda at play here? Feministas?
They may want to delete the word "Free" from their name, don't think it will help their publication in any rate.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-25 2:27:08 PM
Conservatives do you wonder why left leaning people, political correctness, feminization etc.. have become strong forces in Canada? If your views are so correct, persuasive and better, why don't more people subscribe to them. You people are sink or swim, kill or be killed, winner take all types. How did these commies, queers, dikes and tree huggers get a voice? Well the good old days weren't exactly as good as Joe Molnar and others claim them to be. Heck, a gay, sex crazed, alcoholic Republican has surfaced recently in the U.S. Why is it so amazing? Well many left leaning people know full well that the Macho Neo-cons are probably as phony as the ideals they claim to have.
Posted by: T | 2006-10-25 3:08:45 PM
T. They ignore the facts. They also use irrelevant speech like "know full well that ... are probably..." Are you sure about anything?
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-10-25 5:09:39 PM
bob,
"As usual, people are trying to turn this into an issue of those dastardly liberals censoring free speech. It is nothing of the sort. "
Are you sure about that?
"This is about a private company exercising its own freedom to publish whatever the hell it wants to publish. No private newspaper should be under any obligation whatsoever to publish everything that is submitted to them."
The people posting before you were simply brandishing their own right to free speech. That right includes criticizing the way a paper brandishes their right to freedom of the press.
What's your problem with that? I saw no pitchforks or calls to shut them down. Oh, BTW, you obviously have the right to criticize their criticizing the paper. And I just excercised my right to criticize you for criticizing them for criticizing the paper.
No censors as far as the eye can see.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-25 6:50:18 PM
jmr sudbury:
Yes I am sure of some things. In the current context, I am sure that nudity has been around and will be around in one way shape or form. This current depiction is just another form. I am also sure that no line of 'proper' behaviour exists because we all have individual belief systems. IF Rory thinks he has the solution, well he should stop talking and run for office. I am also sure that people are buying fewer newspapers and TV viewership is being replaced by on-line sources. What this means is that people are sounding out their voices as never experienced in history, which means that corporate voices are getting tuned out and the 'real' conversations are only beginning to be voiced. Free markets, no borders, no tariffs is the conservative economic mantra. Why not the social one?
Posted by: T | 2006-10-26 12:15:13 PM
The media are already making remarks about Dianne Haskett since her nomination to be the Conservative candidate in the London riding. The fact she is of the Evangelical Christian faith is of prime interest to the press.
When the hell have we heard mention of other religions like Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Muslim etc. mentioned in such cases?
Since Londoners know her well and gave her a landslide victory for Mayor AFTER turning down the Gay pride parade,they will decide what matters.
Whatever is the problem with being a Christian of any denomination in this Country, founded on those principles? It's astounding.
Hatchet wielders have know no bounds.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-10-26 2:09:01 PM
Anyone seen the head of National Association of Evangelicals plight. It is not the faith that is the problem, it is those who wield it in ways for self gain and condemnation of others. The anti-Chrisitians as you call the EBT, feel that the hardline religious people actually look down with contempt at those who don't follow their faith. If Haskett follows her Pastor/Congregation/Scripture to the letter, than everyone else is going to eternal damnation. Is that what we want politicians to think of their constituants?
Posted by: T | 2006-11-04 3:30:39 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.