Censorship In Canada
As you browse through the internet, watch television, listen to the radio or even walk down the street, there is something occurring that we take for granted; speech. We take speech for granted because of its freedom in this country and the lack of censorship we have on our words. Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that is considered by some as objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient. Censorship is most often imposed by governments; however, it is detrimental to democracy and the freedoms we all desire. This thesis will look at how censorship violates privacy laws and Canada’s Charter, is detrimental to the development of new ideas, and how it ultimately ensures
…show more content…
ignorance in a population.
Freedom of expression is the right to speak, but also the right to hear; without this fundamental freedom, society loses an essential feature in its democracy. Cases such as Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (2000) and Brody, Dansky, Rubin v. The Queen (1962)are both examples of censorship employed by the government in order to get rid of supposedly ‘obscene’ materials. Both cases involve book censorship of issues such as being LGBTQ or adulterous writings, yet neither were harmful to society. The government just did not approve of those topics and tried to get rid of them completely. This is an issue as it shows the lengths our government is willing to take in order to gain control of their citizen’s freedom of expression. Freedom of expression itself has its limits, hate speech and non-peaceful protests are some of those limitations. Usually, these limitations cannot be stretched, that is unless the government is the one stretching these limitations. Donald Trump during his campaigning could’ve been considered by some to be spreading hate speech. Hate speech and censorship can usually coincide or oppose each other depending on the context of what is being said. When the Hillary Clinton’s email information was leaked (apparently by the Russians), and Donald Trump used this scandal to cover his own tracks (and also berate Hillary), this can be seen as a form of censorship. The only question that stems from this allusion is how can a government get away with using censorship for their own gains?
Censorship is made to protect the rights of everyone in society. Protecting society as a whole may sometimes coincide with certain rights or freedoms, but there must always be reasonable cause for having to censor anything. Take the case of R. v. Butler for example; in this case, the accused was charged with obscenity (s.150) as he was selling sexual paraphernalia from his own shop. Section 150 of the criminal code goes in depth of what obscenity is and how it is harmful to society. To decriminalise or even ban censorship could lead to the soliciting of vile items such as child pornography, or abusive sites not being taken down online, all for the cause of ‘freedom of expression.’ This is the main point that usually comes to mind when ‘pro-censorship’ is mentioned but the main idea is not to ban or decriminalise censorship but to limit its use on society and keep it only for issues such as confidentiality. If the government was truly using censorship to benefit society, there would not be organizations such as PEN Canada, CJFE(Canadian Journalists for Free Expression), CCLA(Canadian Civil Liberties Association) or even Freedom to Read Foundation; Censorship is not made to protect people, it is made to regulate, and deprive people of their rights in order to create a system that enables the government to be fully in control. This is something that society should not be unknowingly subjected to.
Furthermore, censorship also limits citizens access of information. This is another violation of a person’s rights as it does not allow for freedom of thought, expression, and restricts a citizen’s ability to have their own sense of awareness on the issue at hand.The CSE (Communications Security Establishment Canada) is one of the main government operations that help control the internet in terms of censoring, yet as it is government run, there is not much control that the citizen has in this matter. The government in Canada itself finds ways to secretly censor documents with it falling under the category of being ‘for the citizen’s best interests.’ During the Harper government’s time, censorship was going on insane leaps; such as auditing PEN Canada (when they were abiding the law,) purely based on the premise of limiting freedom of expression. Yet it wasn’t only the Harper government who’ve gone at charities or companies for the purpose of ‘censoring’ their unlawful actions. Back in the late 60’s, the newspaper company Georgia Straight was under fire for having material that apparently was: “obscene, immoral, and all around menace to youth.” This resulted in not only the founder being jailed but a series of encounters with the law that by ‘69, the company had over twenty-two criminal charges. This series of harassment by the government wasn’t even talked about until 1973 where the Vancouver Sun finally brought up this terrible act of censorship. Yet even in 2017, the censorship has still not stopped, books are stilling getting censored, and protests for change are still very prevalent.
Limitations on what the country can or cannot see are up to the government. Confidentiality and respecting their citizen’s rights is also the main part of this, but the Canadian government is legally allowed to censor anything they find detrimental. Yes, the government is inclined to protect the rights of its citizens yet at the same time, it should not have the right to access all their citizen's information on the basis of protection, as that directly contrasts with confidentiality itself. Take Bill C 51, it is an anti terrorism bill passed to protect the safety of all Canadian citizens yet it recklessly allows the government and agencies like the CSE or CSISthe right to spy on canadians. Edward Snowden even stated to the CFJE via telephone conference that the bill is an "an emulation of the American Patriot Act," and that Canada has one of the weakest oversight frameworks for intelligence gathering in all of the western world. This statement basically means that for all the censoring our country does, a good percentage of it could be easily hacked and taken from other countries. In all rationality, no sensible person would want their information taken by the government with statistics like that, yet our society still doesn’t do enough to fight censorship - even with all the insight we are given.
Lastly, censorship ensures ignorance in our society by creating a dystopian world in which no one is educated on the matters at hand.
In some parts of the world or even in history, totalitarian societies like this existed and thrived at one point or another as, within their society, not a lot of people knew the truth and could fight the censorship their government was doing. During Hitler’s reign, censorship of all free forms of communications and educated materials was how Hitler basically brainwashed the younger generations of Germans into hating the Jewish. Propaganda was a massive contributor in censorship, as works like Mein Kampf, Der Giftpilz and Trust no Fox were published and read in schools, at home, or anywhere to ensure that the political power had perfectly manipulated a country into believing things they shouldn’t have. This is the insidious side of censorship, the side that enables a government's power over people based on how well they can manipulate a person’s rights. This sad fact is the reason censorship should be fought against; no one should ever be brainwashed into thinking that their rights aren’t as essential because the government has told them so. In modern day China, there’s a heavy amount of censorship that goes on, most of it being media related, from going to the movies all the way up to even texting someone, the government is able to access it all. In Canada, we are lucky enough to not have a pervasive system like this, but if we don’t take action now, who is to say that Canada couldn’t end up like Australia or even America when it comes to censorship - intrusive systems that have no use in protecting one’s
rights.
Most people are aware of issues such as censorship, they just don’t know what they can do to make a change in society; this shouldn’t be labelled ignorance. Society should create ways for their citizens to make a change rather than just tell them to create it. The statement of ‘not being able to make a change,’ is a very cliched answer to state a person’s indifference. In modern day Canada, society is given a lot of different resources to make a change in their communities; organisations like PEN Canada, CFJE, and CCLA all work hard at educating society and creating censorship awareness. Ignorance or indifference of censorship will not help our government stray away from it, if anything, this will only lead to the government employing it more as they believe their citizen’s concern will not be on the issue. Take the recent case of Netsweeper, they are notoriously known for being a company that creates and installs censoring programs into computers. Recently they have installed censoring equipment onto nine major internet service providers in Bahrain; the only problem is that Netsweeper is funded by the Canadian government, meaning that Canadian citizens are now paying for mass internet censorship in other parts of the world. Why is it that most people aren’t informed about companies like Netsweeper? This is due to the fact that the government is also able to feign ignorance when it is not pressed on the matters. If people got together and helped out organisations that are against censorship, the government would be forced to explain themselves - ignorance could not be used as an excuse.
In conclusion, censorship should not be something used in Canada at all unless it is for the purpose of confidentiality. Censorship is a very detrimental tool to society, as it puts all the power on our government. If society is not able to trust their own government with such tools; we must ask whether or not we wish to see such tools, but if that’s the case, society must also change. We must not overuse our freedoms as if they’re privilege, but more like a luxury that if we are not careful, could disappear entirely.
ignorance in a population.
Freedom of expression is the right to speak, but also the right to hear; without this fundamental freedom, society loses an essential feature in its democracy. Cases such as Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (2000) and Brody, Dansky, Rubin v. The Queen (1962)are both examples of censorship employed by the government in order to get rid of supposedly ‘obscene’ materials. Both cases involve book censorship of issues such as being LGBTQ or adulterous writings, yet neither were harmful to society. The government just did not approve of those topics and tried to get rid of them completely. This is an issue as it shows the lengths our government is willing to take in order to gain control of their citizen’s freedom of expression. Freedom of expression itself has its limits, hate speech and non-peaceful protests are some of those limitations. Usually, these limitations cannot be stretched, that is unless the government is the one stretching these limitations. Donald Trump during his campaigning could’ve been considered by some to be spreading hate speech. Hate speech and censorship can usually coincide or oppose each other depending on the context of what is being said. When the Hillary Clinton’s email information was leaked (apparently by the Russians), and Donald Trump used this scandal to cover his own tracks (and also berate Hillary), this can be seen as a form of censorship. The only question that stems from this allusion is how can a government get away with using censorship for their own gains?
Censorship is made to protect the rights of everyone in society. Protecting society as a whole may sometimes coincide with certain rights or freedoms, but there must always be reasonable cause for having to censor anything. Take the case of R. v. Butler for example; in this case, the accused was charged with obscenity (s.150) as he was selling sexual paraphernalia from his own shop. Section 150 of the criminal code goes in depth of what obscenity is and how it is harmful to society. To decriminalise or even ban censorship could lead to the soliciting of vile items such as child pornography, or abusive sites not being taken down online, all for the cause of ‘freedom of expression.’ This is the main point that usually comes to mind when ‘pro-censorship’ is mentioned but the main idea is not to ban or decriminalise censorship but to limit its use on society and keep it only for issues such as confidentiality. If the government was truly using censorship to benefit society, there would not be organizations such as PEN Canada, CJFE(Canadian Journalists for Free Expression), CCLA(Canadian Civil Liberties Association) or even Freedom to Read Foundation; Censorship is not made to protect people, it is made to regulate, and deprive people of their rights in order to create a system that enables the government to be fully in control. This is something that society should not be unknowingly subjected to.
Furthermore, censorship also limits citizens access of information. This is another violation of a person’s rights as it does not allow for freedom of thought, expression, and restricts a citizen’s ability to have their own sense of awareness on the issue at hand.The CSE (Communications Security Establishment Canada) is one of the main government operations that help control the internet in terms of censoring, yet as it is government run, there is not much control that the citizen has in this matter. The government in Canada itself finds ways to secretly censor documents with it falling under the category of being ‘for the citizen’s best interests.’ During the Harper government’s time, censorship was going on insane leaps; such as auditing PEN Canada (when they were abiding the law,) purely based on the premise of limiting freedom of expression. Yet it wasn’t only the Harper government who’ve gone at charities or companies for the purpose of ‘censoring’ their unlawful actions. Back in the late 60’s, the newspaper company Georgia Straight was under fire for having material that apparently was: “obscene, immoral, and all around menace to youth.” This resulted in not only the founder being jailed but a series of encounters with the law that by ‘69, the company had over twenty-two criminal charges. This series of harassment by the government wasn’t even talked about until 1973 where the Vancouver Sun finally brought up this terrible act of censorship. Yet even in 2017, the censorship has still not stopped, books are stilling getting censored, and protests for change are still very prevalent.
Limitations on what the country can or cannot see are up to the government. Confidentiality and respecting their citizen’s rights is also the main part of this, but the Canadian government is legally allowed to censor anything they find detrimental. Yes, the government is inclined to protect the rights of its citizens yet at the same time, it should not have the right to access all their citizen's information on the basis of protection, as that directly contrasts with confidentiality itself. Take Bill C 51, it is an anti terrorism bill passed to protect the safety of all Canadian citizens yet it recklessly allows the government and agencies like the CSE or CSISthe right to spy on canadians. Edward Snowden even stated to the CFJE via telephone conference that the bill is an "an emulation of the American Patriot Act," and that Canada has one of the weakest oversight frameworks for intelligence gathering in all of the western world. This statement basically means that for all the censoring our country does, a good percentage of it could be easily hacked and taken from other countries. In all rationality, no sensible person would want their information taken by the government with statistics like that, yet our society still doesn’t do enough to fight censorship - even with all the insight we are given.
Lastly, censorship ensures ignorance in our society by creating a dystopian world in which no one is educated on the matters at hand.
In some parts of the world or even in history, totalitarian societies like this existed and thrived at one point or another as, within their society, not a lot of people knew the truth and could fight the censorship their government was doing. During Hitler’s reign, censorship of all free forms of communications and educated materials was how Hitler basically brainwashed the younger generations of Germans into hating the Jewish. Propaganda was a massive contributor in censorship, as works like Mein Kampf, Der Giftpilz and Trust no Fox were published and read in schools, at home, or anywhere to ensure that the political power had perfectly manipulated a country into believing things they shouldn’t have. This is the insidious side of censorship, the side that enables a government's power over people based on how well they can manipulate a person’s rights. This sad fact is the reason censorship should be fought against; no one should ever be brainwashed into thinking that their rights aren’t as essential because the government has told them so. In modern day China, there’s a heavy amount of censorship that goes on, most of it being media related, from going to the movies all the way up to even texting someone, the government is able to access it all. In Canada, we are lucky enough to not have a pervasive system like this, but if we don’t take action now, who is to say that Canada couldn’t end up like Australia or even America when it comes to censorship - intrusive systems that have no use in protecting one’s
rights.
Most people are aware of issues such as censorship, they just don’t know what they can do to make a change in society; this shouldn’t be labelled ignorance. Society should create ways for their citizens to make a change rather than just tell them to create it. The statement of ‘not being able to make a change,’ is a very cliched answer to state a person’s indifference. In modern day Canada, society is given a lot of different resources to make a change in their communities; organisations like PEN Canada, CFJE, and CCLA all work hard at educating society and creating censorship awareness. Ignorance or indifference of censorship will not help our government stray away from it, if anything, this will only lead to the government employing it more as they believe their citizen’s concern will not be on the issue. Take the recent case of Netsweeper, they are notoriously known for being a company that creates and installs censoring programs into computers. Recently they have installed censoring equipment onto nine major internet service providers in Bahrain; the only problem is that Netsweeper is funded by the Canadian government, meaning that Canadian citizens are now paying for mass internet censorship in other parts of the world. Why is it that most people aren’t informed about companies like Netsweeper? This is due to the fact that the government is also able to feign ignorance when it is not pressed on the matters. If people got together and helped out organisations that are against censorship, the government would be forced to explain themselves - ignorance could not be used as an excuse.
In conclusion, censorship should not be something used in Canada at all unless it is for the purpose of confidentiality. Censorship is a very detrimental tool to society, as it puts all the power on our government. If society is not able to trust their own government with such tools; we must ask whether or not we wish to see such tools, but if that’s the case, society must also change. We must not overuse our freedoms as if they’re privilege, but more like a luxury that if we are not careful, could disappear entirely.