In late May and early June, press reports relating to numerous censorship attempts seemed to reach a crescendo. With governments at every level poised to jump on the bandwagon of violating our individual rights, it was clear to us that this was an issue where Freedom Party's point of difference with the other political parties would stand out strong and clear.
Delivered to every newspaper, radio station, and television station in Ontario, the main purpose of the release was to announce our presence to the media, and to declare our official opposition to government censorship as part of our upcoming election platform.
All media releases issued by Freedom Party will be published in the Freedom Flyer as a service and reference source for our members. For comment on the results and effectiveness of our release, see '...From the President', elsewhere in this issue.
June 1, 1984
In the wake of uncounted censorship drives to eliminate various publications, films, videos, and opinions found to be offensive to many interest groups and individuals, Freedom Party of Ontario is pleased to announce its opposition to any form of government censorship, both on principle and in practice.
It is with this urgent concern that Freedom Party is launching its province-wide drive to politically and philosophically attack all censorship bodies operated by all levels of government.
This attack on censorship will be one of Freedom Party's three major election platform issues for the upcoming provincial election, expected in early 1985. It is our intention to engage in public debates, criticism, and in the solicitation of support from concerned parties, including video retailers, magazine outlets, publishers, distributors, consumers, etc.
Freedom Party of Ontario is an officially registered Ontario political party, and will be running candidates in the next provincial election.
Ontario Censor Board chairman Mary Brown has in the past defended the role of the Censor Board, arguing that its jurisdiction is limited to public exhibition in theatres, and by consistently evading the inevitability of the spread of censorship. No doubt, with legislation pending to expand the Censor Board's jurisdiction to home video, we will now be politely assured that this jurisdiction will not eventually spread to books, magazines, recordings, etc.
Similarly, various spokesmen for the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission have in the past repeatedly proclaimed (despite its blatant Canadian content and format regulations) that the commission's role was not one of censorship. Yet despite such past assurances, we now find federal Communications Minister Francis Fox proposing amendments to give the C.R.TC. 'a necessary stick' to curb programs depicting excessive violence on television.
With a goal of 'putting culture on the national agenda', Fox is in one fell swoop denying Canadian individuals the right to read and view material of their own choosing, while simultaneously forcing them (through taxation) to support those 'cultural activities' which clearly do not have the voluntary economic support necessary to stay afloat.
In effect then, we are faced with two different forms of censorship contributing to a common problem: the insatiable growth of government influence, power, and control over its citizens.
As a result of this dangerous trend to statism, we find ourselves compelled to make the following observations and comments:
On the 'issue' of pornography:
While we must recognize that there are many individuals who are offended by various publications, we cannot condone any attempts whatsoever that involve government legislation.
The real issue facing us is censorship. And that means it's a government-created issue.
Political parties that allow the unwarranted 'issue' of pornography to become a universal platform shared by Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats alike, are parties whose dismal economic performance and social legislation have created conditions that leave them with nothing of substance to offer the electorate.
On Robert Elgie, Ontario's Consumer and Commercial Relations Minister:
If Elgie's claim that 66% of Ontario citizens say some form of censorship should be exercised, then the more significant statistic is that 34% totally oppose censorship. Because that 34% stand unified in their conviction, it is critical to note that the remaining 66% are seldom or never in agreement about what should be censored.
Thus, if the legal standard of morality in this province is to be determined by the number of its adherents, and not by any basis in principle or in right, it is our contention that the solid 'majority' in this province is against censorship. Only those opposing censorship have accepted a 'uniform standard of morality', namely, the marketplace.
As to Elgie's further claim that the standards to be laid down will be neither arbitrary nor repressive, we can only question how such a thing is possible. Whenever some individuals are in a position to 'lay down standards' for other individuals, repression and legal subjectivity become the rule --- and the standard!
On Francis Fox, federal Communications Minister:
It is surprising to find someone of Mr. Fox's background in the position of lecturing the Canadian public on issues of morality.
On the Police:
(a) Staff Sergeant Al Gilmore, head of the London police vice squad, apparently 'finds certain things difficult to understand' when it comes to pornography: 'It's just bafflirig to me... that some people will spend money on some of these things.'
(b) Superintendent Dori Andrews, head of the criminal investigation unit in London has similar misgivings: 'We certainly wonder why anyone would even want to see these things. We can't understand how any straight-thinking person would get any enjoyment out of this.'
With a public admission that they do not understand the motivations of those who consume pornographic products, the police cannot be considered to be in a justifiable position to take Iegal action - action which can only be based upon their self admitted ignorance. We would consider it their duty to find out why people read pornography, before they go around arresting them.
Nevertheless, the London Free Press reports that 'police are still wading through a raft of magazines seized during (an) operation to determine it the material can legally be considered obscene.'
Therefore, we must critically observe that the police have legally confiscated property before determining if an offence has even been committed!
All censorship laws thus represent a denial of an individual's right to 'due process' of law. Without objective evidence, objective standards, and without definable victims to press charges, justice cannot prevail.
Police Sergeant Larry Teixeira, a Project 'P' officer with the Metro Toronto police force, says that the immediate effect of legislation controlling video cassettes will be the movement of 'raunchier' productions onto the underground market: 'No doubt about it. It'll drive the stuff right underground for sure.' His views on censorship: 'if you accept the argument that we should have a censor board, then it should have universal authority, over video as well as film. It's an all or none thing.'
Sgt. Teixeira's observations and comments are quite correct! And 'all' includes books, magazines, film, theatre, radio, the mails, newspapers, --- everything!
Equally significant to note is Sgt. Teixeira's admission that censorship legislation is totally ineffective and will simply create a black market in pornography, essentially identical to the one that exists right now.
On Middlesex county court Judge Joseph Winter:
When Judge Winter appealed to 'his fellow Anglicans at the Diocese of Huron synod' for 'porn guidance', he clearly illustrated that (a) he has already made his mind up on the subject, and (b) that, in seeking for 'guidance', he has revealed the subjective nature of all obscenity laws, where the issue involved is not whether a crime has been committed, but rather, what the crime is.
When any judge would appeal to obviously biased groups for guidance on legal matters, it is evident that impartiality has been discarded in favour of selective prejudice.
On City By-laws regulating merchant displays:
The alarming spread of legislation to control retail magazine displays, combined with the all-party support of the Ontario legislature, serves as a clear demonstration of how easily repressive legislation takes root. Display regulations have never been necessary. Retail merchants, ever conscious of maximizing profits, have long been aware of their customers' concerns, and have arranged their displays accordingly. It is a pity that our civic governments have chosen to use the law to placate those special interest groups who happen to shout the loudest.
Display regulations infringe upon the right to property, to freedom of association, to freedom of the press. Since they are thus a clear violation of individuals' rights, Freedom Party can only advocate the repeal of all such legislation.
On Liberal MPP Don Boudria:
Boudria's support of display regulations (mentioned above) included his denial that such legislation would constitute an attack on freedom of speech. But most interestingly, he commented: 'We have to go on record demonstrating our violent objection to pornography. The word (violent) is somewhat unusual but we must stand up and be counted.'
Boudria's 'unusual' term --- violent --- is not as unusual as he would suggest. We consider it rather descriptive of the actual forces in play when governments begin to legislate.
On the 2% Canadian Content requirement for Canadian theatres:
That's all it takes to ultimately justify 100%.
On Mary Brown, chairman of the Ontario Censor Board:
'We're not trying to protect anyone; our purpose is simply to enforce community standards.' (C.F.P.L. Radio, Feb. 1984)
It's not a moral issue. It's an issue of public safety.' (London Free Press, May 30, 1984, p. D11)
No matter how you look at it, Brown's statements do give us a consistent message: that certain selected minorities within society are to be categorically denied their right to express disagreement with majority opinion - a 'majority' that is inevitably defined by government.
On the Ontario Censor Board:
Abolish it.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
