The Shotgun Blog
« Why Support For Bill C-484 Should Be Unanimous | Main | The ARM story you haven't read (yet) »
Monday, March 10, 2008
Darren Lund on why censorship is necessary (for the children, naturally)
After the Red Deer Advocate published Steven Boissoin's nasty letter to the editor, Darren Lund was the one who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. You can read what was said on the Shotgun about the Boissoin case here. Today, the Globe and Mail carried Lund's defense of government censorship, entitled "Rights Critics Run Amok: Why Free Speech Needs Healthy Limits."
Here are some choice excerpts, along with my commentary. Feel free to post your own fisking in the comments to this post.
"A central task in a democracy is to protect cherished freedoms — of the press, of opinion and of religion, to name a few — while ensuring the safety of all people. This is complex work, and it's where rights commissions can play a vital role."
This is Lund's central thesis: that government censorship (via human rights commissions) is justified because it makes the country a safer place.
I guess Lund wasn't in class when the leftists were taught to quote Ben Franklin on the dangers of sacrificing freedom for security when criticizing the anti-terror policies of George W. Bush. But really, what's the difference between restricting freedom of speech to protect children from gay bashing and using warrantless wiretapping to protect them from Islamic terrorism?
Where to draw the line between free and prohibited speech? Lund starts out noting that, wherever the line is drawn, it should exclude the person who falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded theater. Since nobody thinks it should be permissible to do this, it's unclear why Lund feels the need to make this observation. Lund's goal is not to silence the criminally mischievous theatre-goer, but people who say mean things about gays in letters they write to newspapers.
This next passage is revealing:
"But new lines continually need to be drawn, and the test is fairly straightforward: Freedom of expression must be limited when it calls for hatred and violence against vulnerable people."
Not only does Lund support a line between free and prohibited speech, but he thinks that line should move periodically (just to keep us on our toes, I guess.) Lund and his ilk want the barrier between free and prohibited speech to be drawn and re-drawn at the whim of bureaucrats like Lori Andreachuk and Richard Warman, so that the rest of us can never be sure what side of the line our more controversial statements fall on.
Lund says that freedom of expression should be limited when the speaker calls for violence. It should be noted that advocating violence against people is already against the law. Boissoin never said in his letter that gays should be beaten up. If Boissoin had advocated violence or genocide, why wasn't he charged under the criminal code?
While Lund's avowed intention is to protect people from violence, Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, under which the complaint against Boissoin was upheld, Section 3 does not mention violence. Instead, it prohibits speech that "indicates discrimination" or the intention to discriminate, or speech that is "likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt."
Thus, Lund thinks it should be illegal to merely express hatred. His focus in his opinion piece on speech that counsels others to commit acts of violence is a red herring. What he actually needs to justify is prohibiting people from expressing their feelings.
'Contrary to those who trivialize the work of rights commissions, this ruling was not about addressing "hurt feelings" or catering to the thin skin of "cowerers and wimps." It was about life and death, about the kind of Canada we choose to create, and about safeguarding the personal safety of our kids.'
According to Lund, it was right to penalize Boissoin for his homophobic letter-to-the-editor because the very act of writing that letter made the world less safe for gays. But writing the letter did not make the world less safe. There's no evidence that the gay bashing incident that occurred after the letter had been published would not have occurred (or was even less likely to occur) if the letter had not been published.
Moreover, even if someone had read the letter and decided to break the law, that latter decision is still the responsibility of that person. Think about it: the perpetrator in the Red Deer gay bashing incident was held responsible for his actions. But according to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, Boissoin was also somehow responsible for his actions, even though there's no evidence Boissoin ever told him to do anything (and Lund cites no evidence to the contrary.)
If Boissoin did counsel someone to commit an act of violence, then he broke the law, and should go to jail. Does Lund think Boissoin broke the law? He's very careful not to say one way or another, and we know why: if he (Lund) accused Boissoin of directly counseling someone to commit an act of violence, Lund could find himself facing a defamation lawsuit.
Lund's column, which Warren Kinsella describes as "great", is yet another example of a self-proclaimed censor willing to sacrifice "cherished freedoms" on the dubious assumption that doing so will somehow protect Canadians from the violent behaviour of their fellow citizens. But "hate speech" laws do not focus on the actual perpetrators or instigators of violence, but on those who express bad ideas, like Steven Boissoin.
UPDATE:
After a cup of coffee or two, I cleaned up the post a bit.
Posted by Terrence Watson on March 10, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e550e1104d8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Darren Lund on why censorship is necessary (for the children, naturally):
Comments
Bureaucratic censorship... sounds a bit like having the Minister of Heritage vetting Telefilm tax breaks based on "public policy objectives", doesn't it?
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-03-10 11:29:08 AM
I dunno, Voice... is it censorship to NOT fund someone's speech? If so, then the government is censoring the Western Standard all the time.
But maybe you're right -- the government shouldn't oblige filmmakers to meet public policy objectives before it gives them other peoples' money.
Good point!
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-03-10 11:40:35 AM
Some of you might be interested in attending this panel discussion hosted by the Canadian Constitution Foundation tomorrow (Lund is on the panel):
Human Rights Tribunals: Protecting Rights or Censoring Speech?
A Panel Discussion on the Impact of Human Rights Tribunals Featuring:
Lorne Gunter– National Post (Lorne Gunter is a defender of free speech and always brilliant.)
Shirish Chotalia, Q.C.– Immigration Lawyer Member of Human Rights Tribunal
Darren Lund– Associate Professor, University of Calgary, Faculty of Education
March 11, Noon, Law Building: Room 105
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-10 11:55:00 AM
I would not relish being forced by a gun pointed at my head to say something I otherwise would not have said or did not want to say; or to have my life threatened by saying something someone did not agree with. Freedom of speech to say or not to say.... Does McLeans have to print someone's stuff if it wishes not to? Will I be safe if I verbally condemn those who would destroy my life ...? Whose ox is being gored here? Whose way of live is being threatened?
Posted by: dewp | 2008-03-10 12:05:39 PM
Matthew, full address details, please.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2008-03-10 12:14:03 PM
I think this is it:
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-10 12:36:06 PM
>This is Lund's central thesis: that government censorship (via human rights commissions) is justified because it makes the country a safer place.
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."
~Leon Trotsky
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
~Vladimir Lenin
LUND>" Freedom of expression must be limited when it calls for hatred and violence against vulnerable people."
"It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed."
~Vladimir Lenin
LUND>"It was about life and death, about the kind of Canada WE choose to create, and about safeguarding the personal safety of our kids."
"The writer is the engineer of the human soul."
~Joseph Stalin
"Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party."
~Joseph Stalin
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
~Joseph Stalin
LUND>"each writer has overlooked a key reason we need human-rights protection in the first place: There are some dangerous people out there."
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"
~Joseph Stalin
LUND>"A central task in a democracy is to protect cherished freedoms — of the press, of opinion and of religion, to name a few — while ensuring the safety of all people. This is complex work, and it's where rights commissions can play a vital role."
"There is a limit to the application of democratic methods. You can inquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether to apply the brakes when the train is at full speed and accident threatens."
~Leon Trotsky
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-10 12:54:59 PM
Bravo and kudos Speller for pointing out the origin of Lund's thinking.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-03-10 1:19:06 PM
Lund continues to maniplulate, sensationalize and twist the facts.
My letter was well warranted when taken in context. Unfortunately, my context and intent is constantly dismissed and replaced with Lund's and the AHRC interpretation.
Lund fails to mention he was a public school teacher in Red Deer when I wrote my letter. That the gay debate was nationwide. That he was inviting pro-gay ministers into his high school tolerance program to teach what he called "the pro-homosexual view of the Bible" but not inviting ministers that held the opposing view. He fails to mention that the AHRC funded Alberta PFALG to promote their program that taught that homosexual is "normal, necessary, acceptable and productive and has been for thousands of years" as an initiative. Lund fails to mention that his students were not offered "free speech, freedom of religious belief and expression". Instead they were criticized for holding an opposing view to homosexuality. Numerous teens informed me that they were afraid to share that they did not agree with what Lund and other pro-gay teachers were forcing on them. Lund's program was about much more than tolerance. It was an pro-gay activists agenda.
Ps....I didn't know then just as I don't today who assaulted that boy. I don't even know the boy who was assaalted. I heard about it two weeks after my letter was printed and the boy heard about my letter from the reporter. At that time, I was a facilitator for the Red Deer RCMP's Restorative Justice Program, a licensed minister, the Executive Director of a Christian Youth Charity and have personaly welcomed dozens of at-risk youth into my own home regardless of sexual orientation. Anyone who knows me personally thinks it is absurd to accuse me of approving of and/or causing such a horrendous crime. The so called staff member that was one of Lund's witnesses was actually a "client" that was on a 6 month employabilty program. She had her facts way out to lunch and if she had known something she failed to mantion it to any senior staff member, a board member or the police.
Lund continues to attack my reputation. He slanders me in my own community and do you think I can get a fair shot at responding to media...nope.
Ps...I have an interview with Rutherford tomorrow at 11am. I am not sure if it is live or taped.
Blessings
Steve Boissoin
Posted by: Stephen Boissoin | 2008-03-10 1:45:46 PM
The Canadian Constitution Foundation event is taking place in Edmonton -- not Calgary. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-10 2:36:39 PM
Room 105 is fairly small, so arrive a bit early to get a good seat.
Posted by: Jack | 2008-03-10 5:48:23 PM
IF "freedom of expression must be limited when it calls for hatred and violence against vulnerable people," AND IF Mr. Lund is so concerned about "safeguarding the personal safety of our kids," THEN WHY aren't we hearing more about his initiative to prosecute feminist hate speech such as "My body, my choice"? OR is it only a coincidence that annually a hundred thousand young Canadians are killed?
Posted by: Jon | 2008-03-10 11:40:00 PM
Lund is the very reason why every Canadian should fight tooth and nail to reclaim their civil liberties. Just read The Tyranny of Nice, by Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere (with an introduction by Mark Steyn).
Perhaps most worrying of all is the complete inaction and utter complacency of so-called "conservative" leaders such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and premier Ed Stelmach concerning the ongoing erosion of our freedom of speech by anti-democratic judicial activists and "human rights" kangeroo courts.
Posted by: Bill Gibbons | 2008-12-30 5:12:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.