|
The Moon Report is a very artful document. It's certainly no manifesto for intellectual freedom, but it recognizes the damage that the last year's publicity has done to the Canadian "Human Rights" Concession, and it makes important concessions:
* The use of censorship by the government should be confined to a narrow category of extreme expression – that which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group, even if the violence that is supported or threatened is not imminent.
I like the word "censorship" here. Instead of the great wobbling blancmange of PC-speak, it calls a spade a spade.
* Any attempt to exclude from public discourse speech that stereotypes or defames members of an identifiable group would require extraordinary intervention by the state and would dramatically compromise the public commitment to freedom of expression. Because these less extreme forms of discriminatory expression are so commonplace, it is impossible to establish clear and effective rules for their identification and exclusion. But because they are so pervasive, it is also vital that they be addressed or confronted.
* We must develop ways other than censorship to respond to expression that stereotypes the members of an identifiable group and to hold institutions such as the media accountable when they engage in these forms of discriminatory expression.
Ah, right. This is the real purpose of the report - to throw in the towel on Section 13 but "develop ways other than censorship" that have the same effect as censorship. What Deborah Gypapong calls the censorious impulse runs throughout Professor Moon's report.
The major Internet service providers (ISPs) should consider the creation of a hate speech complaint line and the establishment of an advisory body, composed of of individuals with expertise in hate speech law, that would give its opinion as to whether a particular website hosted by an ISP has violated section 13 of the CHRA or the "hate propaganda" provisions of the Criminal Code.
If this body were to decide that the complaint is well founded, the ISP host would then shut down the site on the basis of its user agreement with customers.
This reveals Professor Moon as a sadly out-of-touch figure with no idea how the Internet works. Any "complaint line" would quickly fill up with trolls barraging the ISPs with nuisance complaints about their enemies: It's easy to foresee, say, Warman-Kinsella types clogging up the complaints line with grievances against Ezra Levant's website. And it's easy to see that ISPs, having no desire to micromanage small websites day in day out, would respond by pre-emptively refusing business from anything remotely controversial. The interesting websites would be obliged to find non-Canadian hosts.
Newspapers and news magazines should seek to revitalize the provincial/regional press councils and ensure that identifiable groups are able to pursue complaints if they feel they have been unfairly represented in mainstream media.
If this does not happen, consideration should be given to the statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership. This national press council would have the authority to determine whether a newspaper or magazine has breached professional standards and order the publication of the press council’s decision.
A newspaper is not simply a private participant in public discourse; it is an important part of the public sphere where discussions about the affairs of the community takes place. As such it carries a responsibility to portray the different groups that make up the Canadian community fairly and without discrimination.
Sounds nice and fluffy. But what it boils down to is a committee of mediocrities enforcing PC orthodoxy on an industry already in steep decline. Look at it this way: It's illegal for non-Canadians to own Canadian newspapers, and we're running out of Canadians who want to buy them. When Conrad Black sold the Southam papers, Izzy Asper was the last guy who met the citizenship requirements who was prepared to spend money on them. Using the government to further regulate the product into even more of a snoozeroo is a good way to kill what's left of the business.
Professor Moon should have quit while he was ahead. Abolish Section 13, get out of the censorship business, and let Canadians read what they want and say what they want. Anything else puts creeps like Richard Warman and ahistorical nitwits like Jennifer Lynch back in the picture.
PS As a footnote to that statutory press council mumbo-jumbo, consider the coverage of the "human rights" story this last year. The important concession by the CHRC on the abolition of Section 13 derives almost entirely from the pressure applied by Ezra, the Binksmeister and a handful of other bloggers. In the mainstream press, a few columnar colossi - Margaret Wente, David Warren, George Jonas, Rex Murphy - have been supportive. But, with the exception of Joseph Brean in The National Post, no other reporter in any bigtime Canadian newspaper has made any substantive contribution to an issue of direct concern to their own industry. Even during the show trial in British Columbia, you could find only the most perfunctory reporting in The Vancouver Sun and Province. Even when the BCHRT verdict was issued and I was besieged by media requests, the Vancouver papers didn't bother getting in touch until the Saturday night of the weekend following the verdict. As I said to Ken Whyte over lunch the other week, one lesson of this last year is how many reporters are happy to be the eunuchs in the state censor's harem. Professor Moon has no need to devise institutions to make the eunuchs even more pliant: They're already there.
|
