...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

Moon and “the context” of censorship: Both locally and globally, there are efforts afoot to impose silence upon people by those who, for political and/or religious reasons, want to have the power to control human expression (and thereby control the humans). No doubt that comes as big news to those who like to think there’s something called “the Canadian context,” and that it is completely separate from and different than anything occurring at the international level. Tragically, these folks are in the grip of a crippling delusion, one that has rendered them incapable of thinking clearly and critically. My Rx for these poor, beclouded souls: read this editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. It explains that, when it comes to censorship, there is no “Canadian context.”  Or, rather, that “the context” of censorship in Canada and “the context” of censorship at the UN are actually one and the same:

…In general, though, the state must not dictate which jokes cross the line, or which terms perpetuate stereotypes. Misguided attempts to safeguard religious groups from intolerance can ultimately have the opposite effect.

People of any faith have the right to hold whatever beliefs they choose, to express those beliefs, to worship and associate how they like. They do not have the right to forbid others from criticizing their beliefs, even if that criticism takes a hurtful tone. To invent such a right is to criminalize the expression of certain opinions or forms of expression -- which is, in itself, an intolerant attitude.

This paradox explains why the world's most intolerant states are among the supporters of a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly on "combating defamation of religions." The resolution or something like it now pops up at the UN every year; this year's version recently passed a General Assembly committee.

The resolution is supported by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Human-rights groups worry, with reason, that it will be used to provide legitimacy to laws that punish blasphemy and apostasy.

"Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings," said Catherine Loubier, the spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. She's right. Ideas, whether they are religious or secular, must be subject to debate in any free society.

The resolution calls on the Human Rights Council to promote "universal respect for all religious and cultural values." Well, what if one family's religious values include the idea that a widow should throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre? Or that God wants men to take child brides?

Arguments that such practices are not reflective of the mainstream, or have no basis in scripture, are irrelevant. To the people who hold them, they are matters of faith. But that doesn't mean they're immune from criticism, or even from satire, anymore than the beliefs of mainstream Muslims, Christians and others are off-limits.

Canada has already spoken clearly at the UN. It can continue to lead the defence for free speech by repealing its own vestigial anti-blasphemy law, and by removing the Canadian Human Rights Commission's mandate to police expression.

To review: the censors like to think globally and act locally. Then again, they also like to think globally and act globally. In other words, it’s all one big “context” to them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments

Comments: