- Alan Borovoy is the general counsel of the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association and a writer for the Globe and Mail
newspaper. In his book When Freedoms Collide he makes the
following conclusion after citing many attempted definitions of
obscene material, the OFVRB's banning of the National Film
Board's anti-porn film Not a Love Story, and Customs
officials seizing a film dealing with male masturbation even
though the intended recipient of the film was the University of
Manitoba Medical School:
Our language simply lacks the precision to make the
requisite distinctions [concerning a definition of obscenity].
Thus, the key question is which of the competing risks is the
least dangerous to incur. Is it better (or least bad) to risk
the suppression of works of art and important political
statements? Or is it better (or least bad) to risk the greater
proliferation of unredeemed trash? At this stage in history I
believe it is more sensible to opt for the latter danger over the
former one.*
- Kim Sawchuck who wrote in Borderlines about
"Dislocating Comfort: A Panel Discussion on Controversial Art"
concluded that...
Perhaps there is no answer because, as other
postmodern theorists have surmised, the social body is fragmented
into a plurality of competing value systems that contain
ir-reconcilable visions of what a community should be."*
It follows then that to be ethical, either we should all have
the power to censor each other's material or we should all agree
not to censor each other's material.
- Susan Ditta is the Head of Media Arts at the Canada Council.
She ended her talk at the Refusing Censorship Conference with
the following conclusion:
...censorship is insidious. There's outright state
censorship. There's the quiet shutting of doors, the exclusion
from programming, the withdrawal of financial resources that are
threatened to institutions when they dare to show work. There's
always the looming of self censorship, which I think affects
artists as well as curators, programmers. I don't believe that
censorship offers protection for women. I think it reinforces
the power and the dominance of a sexist racist homophobic society
by silencing alternative voices. It wears artists and arts
institutions down and it distracts them from their work. It
sidetracks them form the battles for more funding and equal
access. It chills. *
My Position Against Censorship
When bound to the domain of academia, there are good arguments
both for and against censorship. It is not unreasonable to
suppose that published hate and mediations of violence including
violent sex can be offensive to most Canadians and may even encourage violence against some of us. If we
decide to have censorship, however, we both compromise our
freedom of speech and are left with the chore of deciding where
to draw the illusive and unstable line between what should be
censored and what should not.
The entire academic debate is just that - academic. In the
real world any argument for censorship is blown out of water when
one simple question is asked - "who?".
Who should have the
power to form censorship legislation, who should have the power
to interpret it, and who should be given the power to enforce it?
Isn't it ironic that the only people who ever have the power to
legislate and enforce censorship, supposedly against oppression
and on behalf of those who are disempowered, are those in power?!
Censorship can therefore never help reduce oppression and
domination, it can only add to it. Censorship is bound in any
real form to be hypocritical and an inherent conflict of interest
for those who hold power.
The problem as I see it is not that there is too much
information. There is not enough. When our government imposes
its chill of censorship, the most important things left in the
dark and left out of the picture - the things effecting you the
most that are banned, seized, and burned - the real losers - are
your eyes.
|
