Freedom Flyer 2

Sir: I was less than favorably impressed with the Feb. 4 coverage given the Women Against Pornography meeting, (Peterson advocates stronger censorship), held at the central library on Feb. 3, a meeting which I attended. While emotion, opinion and political rhetoric were routinely detailed, the consequences of the "legislative action" being advocated were also routinely ignored.

David Peterson certainly does "advocate stronger censorship" - and the police state that invariably accompanies it. In this regard he was most specific, though I cannot account for its omission in your news story.

Among Peterson's proposals were (a) a "redefinition of obscenity," (2) making the possession (in addition to the purchase, rental and sale) of "obscene" material an offence, (3) extending the censor board's jurisdiction well beyond the realm of films shown on so-called public screens, (4) licensing the sale of "allowable " materials, (5) enforcement of "display regulations", (6) creation of a "central authority" to determine what is "obscene" (despite his redefinition of the term), and (7) the "instructing" of police and customs officials with "adequate knowledge" in the determination of "obscenity" (again, despite the redefinition).

Calling himself a classic liberal, Peterson nonetheless proceeded to denigrate the term by claiming that we have to have "societal solutions" with "collective standards" and that "politicians should make these decisions on (our) behalf." Clearly, Peterson's definition of "classic liberal" was as as subjective as the rest of the terms and laws he uses and advocates. By openly admitting that he was "tampering with a fundamental human right" and by conveniently ignoring the fact that a fundamental right is one with which one may not tamper, the blatant subjectivity of his position was bared for all to see.

Even though no one in attendance could morally and ethically defend censorship (admitted by some to be a "necessary (evil", but "evil" nonetheless), neither could anyone defend the so-called pragmatic argument favoring censorship. When I asked the panel members why the "problem" of "child pornography" still supposedly exists, despite the fact that we already have not only censorship laws against this material, but also explicit laws in the Criminal Code dealing with this problem, all I got for an answer was an embarrassing level of silence.

Censorship does not work. It never has. And while groups promoting it claim to be defending human dignity, they are most hasty to destroy the single condition that makes such dignity possible - our freedom of choice. It was a tragic irony to hear one speaker claim that "we have no right to use violence as a means to cope with our frustrations", knowing all the while that she represented those who are clearly frustrated at the prospect of living in a society where many simply do not share their values or their interpretations of the printed materials to which they object.

It is regrettable that, because of their inability to defend their position in open and public forums, censor advocates are forced to resort to the very philosophy against which they preach, namely, when persuasion fails, use force.