Vancouver Courier
for March 25, 1998

Allan Dutton, spokesman for the Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society, is a well meaning, energetic man dedicated to eradicating racism. On that issue we stand shoulder. We are united also by a contempt for the likes of Doug Collins who has made a minor career out of hiding vicious racism under the cloak of free speech, Doug Christie - racism's legal mouthpiece who pretends that just because he's their lawyer, doesn't associate him with their causes, Bernard Klatt who runs a hate mongering web site and all of their ilk. You'd think therefore think that we'd be united on the recent business in Oliver where racists posing as free speechers became a national cause celebre. But we weren't.

I don't question Mr Dutton's motives or the rightness of the cause. my quarrel is with his way of dealing with the matter.

Free speech, the cornerstone of democracy, is a very fragile thing. It's often extremely hurtful to many so society must weigh the essential nature of this fundamental freedom against the feelings of its victims.

I'm not an absolute free speech person. I don't believe you can give secrets to the enemy, or urge people to throw bombs, under the guise of free speech. You can't counsel someone to commit a crime and in the common example, you can't use free speech to holler "fire" in a crowded theater.

We make these rare exceptions because history has taught us that it's wrong to imperil national safety, directly encourage crime, or incite death by panic.

Why then should it not be lawful to censor those who preach racism, even unto violence?

For two reasons.

First, while there have been many incidents of violence, there's no evidence that censoring kooks is the answer. Unquestionably there are people who see these evil men as great leaders, but there will always be those sorts - the question is whether we make martyrs of their heroes by suppressing them or beat them back with the ideas of decent people?

Which leads to my two main points.

Where does this suppression of free speech lead us? If we can shut up racists, who's next on the list?

A real fear?

You bet. A few years ago when he was Mayor of Vancouver, Mike Harcourt tried to ban Henry Kissinger from speaking on the grounds that he was part of a right wing government behind dictatorial regimes in Central and South America.

During the imposition of the War Measures Act in 1970 Vancouver Mayor, Tom "Terrific" Campbell, wanted to use it to throw hippies in jail.

As the horrendously intrusive questions by StatsCan and others prove every day, convenience of the government always outweighs our rights when they can get away with it.

During the APEC conference last Fall, law student Craig Jones was displaying two cloth signs saying "Free Speech" and "Democracy". For his pains he was thrown to the ground by two policemen while another jumped up and down on the back of his legs as he was handcuffed, thrown in a paddy wagon and tossed in jail. Mr Jones had, incidentally, offered no resistance. The Federal Government was saved embarrassment

You may trust the government to curtail free speech for the good of us all - I don't.

Secondly, what does censorship accomplish?

Sol Littman, spokesman for the Simon Wiesenthal Center called Oliver the "hate capital of Canada" thus combining a hurtful slur of his own with unbelievable publicity for Mr Klatt and his slimy website.

Jim Keegstra, the teacher who taught anti semitism, should have been a 24 hour story headlined "Teacher fired for spouting racism in class." Instead he was prosecuted under the hate laws and he is still before the courts 14 years later gathering in loads of free publicity.

Ernst Zundel, a wingnut, night after night marched before the national TV cameras in a hard hat carrying a cross garnering publicity he couldn't have paid for in a dozen lifetimes of working.

Any sort of publicity is manna from heaven to these evil people. If you want more and more viewers to Mr Klatt's website, get him on the front pages of papers and onto TV and radio. It makes no sense.

My solution?

I don't have one which guarantees success for there is none. But I think a better idea than suppressing free speech, which like censuring a book simply ensures its widest possible circulation, is putting one's efforts into education on the accurate assumption that most people by far are decent people who reject the crap the racists put out.

I say to Allan Dutton, don't get into the pigpen with these dangerous clowns - your justified outrage counts for nothing against pig shit which just gets wider spread the more you try to shut down the operation.

Allan - if the government can shut down speech it considers dangerous, it then becomes a matter of definition. Governments always make these definitions in a way which best suits them. As the Apec Conference so eloquently demonstrates.

Fight on, Allan, but on high ground of your choosing.