In response to its advertised request for written submissions relating to the powers of the Ontario Film Review Board, following are Freedom Party's official responses to the questions as published by the Law Reform Commission.

How can the law governing films and videos best balance freedom of expression with the need to limit the potentially adverse effects of exposure to such material?

The moment "freedom of expression" becomes "balanced" with so-called "limits" which are imposed by a state-empowered board, freedom of expression ceases to exist in any meaningful social context whatsoever. Thus this question is ambiguous at best, or contradictory and misleading at worst. Taken at face-value, the appropriate response is: The law cannot accomplish any such "balance" without tipping the scales of justice entirely in one direction or another.

Furthermore, the question as posed exists in a complete intellectual, legal, and moral vacuum. Which "adverse effects" are being referred to? The only explicitly mentioned "effect" in the Law Reform Commission's published mandate is "sexual gratification." Since sexual gratification can be obtained from any number of given stimulants, its description as an "adverse effect" becomes moot, to say the least. Whether a particular individual is capable of achieving sexual gratification from "depictions" (not realities) of "violence, torture, horror, human degradation, and physical abuse or humiliation" requires specific knowledge of the viewer, not of the material being viewed. (In this context, the obvious issue of those who view such "depictions" merely as casual "entertainment" or drama, and who may in no way find such material sexually arousing, is one that must consequently be evaded by censor advocates.)

If the term "adverse effect" as used by the Law Reform Commission is meant to refer to the initiation of violence on the part of one citizen towards another, then whatever ideas, beliefs, or motivations lie behind any initiation of violence are secondary to the concern of the law, which should be delegated to the administration of justice based on the nature of the action taken by a perpetrator. To be sure, two different individuals may share many of the same ideas and beliefs (i.e., religious) or even share similar "sexually gratifying" stimulants, but this can in no way be used as a barometer to determine which of the two is prone to the initiation of violence, or which is incapable of such action.

To complicate matters even further, a discussion of limiting "potentially" adverse effects introduces an unhealthy dose of subjectivism into the enforcement of what should otherwise be - in any free society - objective laws. Anyone, by definition, is a "potential" murderer, thief, etc. To assume that the law should have the power to restrict and limit individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms in the absence of any evidence of their wrongdoing is possibly the most degrading and undignified act any government can direct at its supposedly free and responsible citizens.

By its very nature, objective law is a recoursive instrument. Consequently, the law is objectively capable only of dealing with individuals' actions. In a free society, thought, belief, opinion, and expression are well beyond the jurisdiction of any legal regulation or prohibition. Any attempt to bring these fundamental freedoms under the control of any government regulation, or agency of regulation, is a direct violation of those freedoms and can properly be regarded as the initiation of an act of violence on the part of government.

Censorship is the initiation of legal force, which in the case of the Ontario Film Review Board is exercised through its "powers to classify, regulate and prohibit the exhibition and distribution of films and videos in Ontario." The right to initiate such force belongs to no citizens and therefore cannot justifiably belong to any agency of government.

How does the Ontario Film Review Board's role interact with other existing or proposed measures that regulate the availability and distribution of these images, including federal obscenity legislation and customs regulations, zoning by-laws and specific human rights legislation? Is there a need for a separate body to censor or prohibit the exhibition or distribution of films or parts of films?

It cannot be denied that the censorship powers of various federal, provincial, and local governments and their agencies are frequently in conflict with each other. Not only do specific enforcement powers differ, but the standards of censorship may also be widely different, often leaving those charged under censorship laws totally confused and unable to depend upon any objective criteria for defence in a court of law.

Since censorship is unjustifiable in a free society, the "need" for yet another "body to censor or prohibit" is a "need" visible only to those who have no respect for the fundamental rights of free citizens. It is those who fail to respect the rights of others that the law should be protecting its citizens from. What the public truly needs is protection from censor boards.

Is the Board the appropriate body to which to delegate the discretion to determine the public availability of these images?

No. In a free society, individual citizens are accorded the right to make their own choices. It is this right of choice, when responsibly exercised through the proper enforcement of private property rights, that makes it possible for all citizens to protect themselves from the unwanted or undesired choices of others. Thus, individual freedom has its own "built-in" limits, rendering any issues of "balancing" freedom of expression with government-imposed limits completely irrelevant.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 30, 2002