Wednesday, March 3, 2004 |
16:28 - Freedom is slavery
http://transplantedtexan.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_transplantedtexan_archive.html#1078
|
(top) |
InstaPundit pointed to this post by the Transplanted Texan, writing from Canada, in which he describes an assault on freedom of speech-- in the most real sense, that of government censoring the words the public are allowed to use in speech or print. Tune in to read his righteous Fisking.
HALIFAX - The Nova Scotia government has published a list of words and phrases it wants banished from the news media, including "madman," "nutcase," "fruitcake," and "kooky," and will pay people for reporting their use.
The Health Department is offering cash awards to citizens who inform authorities of instances of "outdated, negative, inappropriate" terms it considers offensive to people with mental illness.
The government even says "mental hospital" and "nervous breakdown" should be verboten, not only in stories dealing with the mentally ill, but in all public discourse.
But... but... but... I thought Canadians had free speech! It says so right here:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.
That's the trouble with laws that are worded in this kind of nebulous, content-free manner: what, exactly, does it mean? It describes various touchy-feely concepts, but it doesn't draw any legal lines or distinctions. What exactly does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allow the government to do regarding speech, expression, thought, association, and so on? What does it forbid the government to do? It really doesn't say. Is Nova Scotia in violation of this section of the Charter? Worded as it is, is it even possible to be in violation of it? The question is almost nonsensical. It's like a statement from the Supreme Soviet on gifted education policy, claiming that "all Russian children are equally clever".
This is why a sentence like:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...while seemingly a lot more arcane and severe, is much more compelling from a legal standpoint because it actually specifically forbids certain actions of the government. It contains a positively worded command. It doesn't just affirm "freedoms", it establishes a legal framework that can be cited in later legislation and judicial proceedings regarding free-speech issues. You can render a pat legal judgment on whether the government has in fact passed a law that abridges the freedom of speech, and strike it down if it has. You can't make firm law based on a statement that "everyone" has certain "fundamental freedoms".
After all, Nova Scotia certainly seems to believe it's acting within the principles of "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression", in forbidding citizens to call each other crazy in public-- or, at least, that there's no law on the books specific enough to prevent them from doing so.
Let's hope the Canadian public feels strongly enough about this issue to fight back.
UPDATE: CapLion IM's:
So like, what are the canucks supposed to fight back WITH? They can't use guns OR harsh language, now.
Me:
Maybe they can use ironic social commentary in public-funded naked sitcoms.
|
|