Freedom Flyer 2

Sir: I am astounded by the cavalier fashion in which The Free Press has treated the single issue where public responsibility and vested self-interest coalesce. I am speaking, of course, of the duty to defend freedom of speech in this country.

Your paper has consistently chosen the rhetoric of the enemies of freedom in reporting the debate on this issue. You have consistently described what those friends of censorship are opposed to as "pornography" or "hate literature" without challenging them to prove that their blanket condemnation is justified.

I think this issue is put into context by their description of the 20 Minute Workout as pornography.

We have laws in this country which allow those persons who overstep the bounds of what society can withstand to be tried in an open court process where they have the opportunity to present their side of the case and receive the judgment of their peers.

They are penalized for acts, not fears.

In place of this, we have the friends of censorship wishing to increase the power of government to inhibit our freedom. They wish to give greater power to that very government which 65 per cent of our population have indicated they would vote against if an election were held.

This support has gone so far as to encourage our local politicians to venture into the realm of regulating and licensing what the citizens of London can see and read.

I would remind those enemies of free thought that, in addition to the horrible fact that James Keegstra was a teacher, he was also a mayor. I would also remind disadvantaged groups which wish to invoke government power that history shows that this power may eventually be used against the politically weak.

A free society can only survive by trusting its citizens and by placing the responsibility for their actions squarely on them.

The problem of intolerance is not the vile assertions of people like Keegstra, which are rejected out of hand bv the great bulk of the population. True tolerance and understanding can only be obtained by individuals acting responsibly. What we require is not the banning of what fanatics such as James Keegstra have to say but rather individual and immediate objections to racial or sexist jokes and slurs that are part of our everyday life and which encourage stereotypes to form part of our emotional baggage. It is only by individual pressure that the dignity of man can be upheld.

The friends of freedom should be the friends of the dignity of man and enemies of the terrorism of the state.

I urge The London Free Press to abandon its sympathetic ear to an emotional claim inconsistent with the principles on which Canada is built.