"I am a censor"

Warren Kinsella weighs in on Ezra Levant and the Danish cartoons controversy:

Firstly, let me say that I am a censor. I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression.

Secondly, I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, persuade people to kill.

Thirdly, I believe that we are entitled, as a society, to sanction (civilly or criminally) those who use words and images to deliberately or recklessly inflict harm on others - as with laws relating to the propagation of hate, or laws prohibiting child pornography, or defamation codes, or laws designed to sanction pornography that promotes violence against women and children.

And, yes: I believe we are entitled as society to place reasonable limits on the expression of actual hatred towards religious faiths. I believe that words and images that expose the tenets of a person's faith to hatred should be condemned and, where appropriate, punished. Expressing hatred about someone else's spiritual beliefs is not free speech. It is hatred, and it is almost always calculated to cause pain and hurt.

Better stay away from Canada, Professor Dawkins. Kinsella - who does not say whether or not he supports the human-rights proceedings against Ezra Levant, and whether publication of the Danish cartoons crosses a line justifying intervention by the state - excuses his own mockery of Stockwell Day's religious beliefs, of course:

I say that, too, as the same guy who used a Barney doll and a joke - the "Flintstones is not a documentary" line - during the 2000 Canadian election campaign. (I did so because Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day had repeatedly stated that his religious beliefs had, and would, inform his political beliefs. And because Canadian voters were therefore entitled, at that moment, to fully consider the ramifications of faith-based politics, as Day was then seeking the highest political office in the land. I note, without irony, that the Barney stunt has led to calls for me to be excommunicated and/or sued and/or prosecuted - in Ezra's former publication, the Western Standard.)

I actually agree that Day's religious beliefs were fair game for mockery and criticism, for the exact reason Kinsella gives. But I'm not the one arguing for censorship here.

Kinsella, a practicing Catholic, assures us that he isn't necessarily offended when people savage his own beliefs:

In early 2006, at a band practice, we were talking about another Toronto punk group, called - and I'm not making this up - T** F*** Me Jesus.

I'm a church-going Catholic, and that band's name doesn't offend me in the slightest. Nor the stuff found on the covers of Black Flag records, nor the songs by my beloved Bad Religion.

But that's just me. And I can certainly see how someone else could be offended - really and truly hurt - by something like a band called T** F*** Me Jesus. And, just because I'm okay with that, doesn't mean that someone else has to be.

So he'd support a human-rights complaint against the band, then? My biggest problem with Kinsella's argument is that he doesn't say where the line should be drawn. Do we cross that line (meriting state intervention) when we say mean things about a guy who died in 632AD? What about the Pope? L. Ron Hubbard? Christopher Hitchens?

Kinsella knows a lot about hate groups - he wrote a fine book on the subject in 1994. A fair-minded case can be made for laws criminalizing hate speech, in certain circumstances. But if failing to show the proper respect to a historical figure justifies censorship, we're all in trouble. (If our right to freedom of expression was that limited, what would his beloved punk bands sing about?)

Damian P.

Posted by damian at January 14, 2008 01:42 PM