Newsletter

January 2007

Censorship Debate: Saint Mary’s University Letter To The Editor

October 18, 2006

In
Response to Mark Mercer’s Letters to the Editor (Sept. 20 and Oct. 11) re:
Peter March Controversy.

In
reading Mark Mercer’s comments in his letters to the editor on September 20 and
on October 11, it’s clear that he does not have a genuine understanding of the
scope of the issues surrounding the publications of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace
Be Upon Him).

Dr.
Mercer holds that Dr. March has the right as an academic to say whatever he
wants to whomever he wants, no matter who he insults, because that is what the
so called “life of the mind” is about, open discussion and dialogue. But, the
issue at hand runs far deeper than a simple insult to the Muslim community. If
this is a simple matter of offence then all who actually value real academia,
scholarly criticism, true insight, and “the life of the mind” should have
been offended by March’s continual display of ignorance, misunderstanding, and
thoughtlessness, not just Muslims. No this issue runs much deeper.

Although the depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) are indeed
offensive to the Muslim community, their repercussions to society are much more
grave. These images are part of a system of images that perpetuate a stereotype
of Muslims and Arabs that has permeated Western academia, politics, and culture
since the middle of the seventeenth century. These sorts of depictions, whether
they are in editorial cartoons or in history books, are birthed from and have
helped cultivate a sense of superiority in the west, and have allowed for the
justification of centuries of colonization, occupation, and oppression. The
issues at hand are not about simply insulting, they are about dehumanization or
other human beings, racism, segregation, and power. Mercer asserts that by
silencing March’s madness, we are indeed suppressing his expression of ideas,
but what Dr. Mercer doesn’t seem to realize is that March’s actions and the
images of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) that have been published
across the world are part of a system that is suppressing others socially and
politically on a global scale.

And
this has nothing to do with free speech in Canada. Freedom of speech in this
country is not granted so that our citizens and raving lunatics can go around
saying whatever they want. Freedom of speech in Canada is a means to criticize
those in power without suffering from political consequences; it is not a means
to further disenfranchise an already segregated and suppressed group. If
academic freedom, however, does entail the ability to do this, then it is part
of the problem and must be re-defined. For it should never be the role of an
academic to uphold social constructions, misrepresentations, misconceptions, and
stereotypes, but to help their students and society see beyond these things; to
employ a higher level of critical thought and a higher level of analysis so we
can move beyond these sort of intellectual constraints, so our thoughts are
framed by our collective cultural understanding, and so we can actually live the
“life of the mind” where we are actually free to think for ourselves.

Zach Churchill

President

Saint Mary’s University Students Association

Letter To The Editor (The Journal)

October 20, 2006

Zach Churchill makes a mistake opponents of freedom often make (Letter to the
Editor, 18 October). Mr. Churchill supposes that freedom of expression is
for something. (According to Mr. Churchill, freedom of expression is “a
means to criticize those in power….”) Should freedom of expression not
pay its way in securing some social goal he favours, Mr. Churchill would
straightaway kick it off the bus.

But those of us passionate about
freedom of expression want it for its own sake, not (only) for the sake of
something else. We simply like that we and others will say what we want to say
without fear of being silenced or punished by an authority. We love freedom of
expression for itself as we love many other things for themselves: our friends,
political equality, knowledge and understanding, that our students become
competent and committed intellectuals, the happiness and well being of our
fellow citizens or of people generally, the music of Serge Gainsbourg, beauty,
our children, our pets, tennis, whatever. Sometimes, of
course, we have to make compromises among those
things that matter to us for their own sakes. One deep commitment can conflict
with another in a particular case, and then we have to choose against one of
them. We will not find it easy to forsake something that matters to us and we
will regret having to do so.

So
I can imagine agreeing with Mr. Churchill that this or that restriction on
expression is justified in the context of either threats to equality or the
plight of members of a beleaguered and vulnerable minority. Unlike Mr.
Churchill, though, I would be terribly sad to have to advocate restrictions on
expression—but, were the situation dire and the means crucial, advocate
restrictions I would. One practical question for Mr. Churchill and me, then, in
cases like that of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, is whether official
suppression of expressions involving racist or other offensive materials is a
necessary, or even effective, way of promoting the social goals we share.

Mr.
Churchill thinks suppressing displays of the cartoons is an effective way
to promote peace among nations and equality of opportunity for Muslims in
Canada. The cartoons, Mr. Churchill charges, embody racist stereotypes.
Displays of the cartoons, then, will or very well might work to reinforce or
even to engender prejudice against Muslims. Individuals prejudiced against
Muslims will act badly toward those whom they think are Muslim, and Muslims will
suffer.

Let
us suppose that one or another of the cartoons does indeed embody racist
stereotypes. What reason do we have to think that displaying that cartoon
actually promotes racist attitudes? What reason do we have to think that
Dr. March’s displaying the cartoons might well have brought someone to the side
of racism? I’d like to see studies. Perhaps Dr March’s displaying the cartoons
had the salutary effect of causing people prejudiced against Muslims to notice
and criticise their bias. We don’t know either way. Before we can judge the
effectiveness of censorship in realizing some social goal, we need to evaluate
whatever relevant research we can get. Mr. Churchill cites no relevant
research. We ought not just assume that censorship will be an effective tool in
our work.

Let
us suppose that people prejudiced against Muslims will try to act badly toward
those they think are Muslim. How will they try to act badly toward Muslims? By
denying them equality of opportunity, jobs, education, health care, a spot at
the lunch counter, a seat on the airplane, freedom of dress, effective policing?
Let them try!—and then fine the bastards heavily or cart them off to jail.

While we are supposing these things, do keep in mind that even if suppressing
expressions of racism has some good effect, our energies in the fight against
racism and for social justice could well be better spent in ways that don’t
include suppressing any ideas or images. Our energies would be well used
criticizing bad ideas and images and making our own good ones. Our energies
would be well used in at least twenty-seven other ways, including, of course,
doing what we can politically to ensure that Muslims in Canada enjoy equality of
opportunity and all the rest. I wonder: Are there adequate channels through
which Muslims in Canada can speak to other Canadians to make their concerns and
aspirations known? Are there adequate channels for Muslims here at Saint
Mary’s? If not, let’s get to work.

Mr.
Churchill contends that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons embody false and
pernicious stereotypes of Muslims and Islam. He might be right. Let’s find
out. But wait—finding out would require that we examine the cartoons. But we
are not to view the cartoons. After all, they embody false and pernicious
stereotypes. Viewing them might confirm us in our prejudices or, worse, instill
prejudice in us. We will just have to trust the censors who have viewed the
cartoons that indeed they embody false and pernicious stereotypes and that it is
right that we not see them.

That’s the final point I wish to make. Employing censorship and suppression in
our endeavour to create a peaceful, egalitarian, just, and decent society means
handing to our politicians, bureaucrats, police, and courts an awful lot of
power and then turning our backs and trusting them to use it wisely. Even those
who, with Zach Churchill, have no particular liking for freedom of expression
might fear going this route.

Let
me list the points I have made. 1) Zach Churchill thinks of freedom of
expression as a tool that has been granted to us by our nation for a purpose or
a set of purposes. I, on the other hand, love freedom of expression and love it
for its own sake. I would no more that you and I be without it than that you or
I be without music or our friends or our children or whatever it is we love for
its own sake (no matter how bad your music, how no-account your friends,
how rotten your children). 2) Despite this fundamental difference, Mr.
Churchill and I are concerned that Saint Mary’s, and Halifax, and Canada, and
perhaps the world itself be peaceful, egalitarian, just, and decent. We agree
that we would have a strong, though for me perhaps not compelling, reason to
advocate and accept restrictions on expression were those restrictions effective
in promoting peace, equality, justice, or decency. 3) Mr. Churchill gave us in
his letter no reason to think restrictions on expression do or could promote
peace, equality, justice, or decency. (I would note on the other side that at
least one great contemporary liberation movement, that of lesbians and gays, did
extremely well entirely without the aid of laws against homophobic expression.)
4) We have in Canada, or should insist on having, strong protections against
discrimination in hiring, housing, education, and the rest. Let the school
teacher say whatever he wants to say about Jews (talk back to him, of course);
fire him should he fail to teach his Jewish charges (or any of his charges)
well. 5) Whether the weight of evidence, once we see the evidence, tips the
scales in favour of Mr. Churchill or not, much can be done to bring about
peace, equality, justice, and decency without suppressing anyone’s
expression. 6) Trust officials to use the power of censorship to suppress
only racist expression? Might as well trust the puma roaming your house to eat
only the mice.

Mark Mercer, Department of Philosophy, Saint Mary’s University.