Education, Criticism, and Free Speech Collide in Canadian High School

The Offensiveness of Evangelism | First Things: 

It's reasonable to conclude that education and freedom of expression (both intricately linked) are in serious trouble when a senior education professional in Canada can state the following:

“We absolutely support students’ rights to express their beliefs, but we absolutely support students’ rights to not have their own beliefs unreasonably criticized.”

The statement from school Superintendent Nancy Pynch-Worthylake was made to explain why she was supporting the decision of a Novia Scotia high school to demand that one of its Year 12 students stop wearing to school a T-Shirt containing the statement, “Life is wasted without Jesus.”

It is a sad day when an educational establishment cannot use such a provocative item of clothing to engender discussion among its students on the important issues of belief, free speech and mutual tolerance. Protecting children from having to deal with these challenging themes is an anti-educational act, in my opinion. And suggesting that not having one's beliefs criticised is in any sense a "right" is just a step too far in an arena in which freedom of ideas and words should be encouraged to flourish.

As Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society UK says:

“Freedom of expression should be used responsibly, yet some people only regard as 'responsible' that which they don’t regard as offensive or insulting. Freedom only to say only what others find acceptable is no freedom at all."

The t-shirt wearing teen was eventually upheld in his right to wear the controversial item.

Related articles

• Spanish Artist Faces Prison For Insulting The Catholic Faith

  ---

• You can't defend free speech by labelling your opponents 'bigots' and 'extremists'

  ---

• This ban on insults is a gag on free speech

  ---

• Suspended student says he'll keep wearing Jesus T-shirt

  ---

ASA Targets Cranmer's Coalition for Marriage Ad

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, exerted a powerful influence on Edward's Protestantism. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Advertisng Standards Authority has written to the pseudonymous conservative blogger Bishop Cranmer over an advert on his site which supports the Coalition for Marriage - a UK-based lobby group seeking to maintain the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

The ASA has apparently received ten complaints from members of the public that the advert in question is homophobic. His Grace has responded to the ASA's intervention in his typically robust style. His response is worth reading, not least of all so that readers can see the allegedly offensive ad itself.

Although I am not fully in agreement with all of His Grace's individual political views, I strongly agree with his fundamental right to express opinions that others might find disagreeable. I quote from Cranmer's site:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse.

As for the advert itself, I would be fascinated to hear from any reader who could please explain in what way it could ever be considered homophobic.

The C4M has received over half a million signatures so far for its petition in support of its campaign. Interested parties can read and sign it here if they are so inclined. 

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao - Welcome to Britain

Image via Wikipedia

As the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao meets the UK Prime Minister David Cameron today, a short video filmed in secret by one of his fellow Chinese citizens.

Political dissident Hu Jia (pictured), who was released from prison today after three and a half years, has been placed under informal house arrest at his home in Beijing. His "crime" was to write articles and give interviews that were critical of the Chinese government for its human rights abuses. His open letter titled The Real China and the Olympics was published in 2008. 

Prior to his imprisonment, Hu Jia and his wife were placed under near-constant police surveillance. The following video was secretly filmed during this period. Amnesty estimates that since February of this year, at least 130 political activists (including bloggers, writers and lawyers) have been disappeared, or placed under house arrest or close surveillance.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

FBI Launching Mass Raids of Antiwar Activists’ Homes -- News from Antiwar.com

Image via Wikipedia

FBI Launching Mass Raids of Antiwar Activists’ Homes -- News from Antiwar.com


They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.




Pastor Martin Niemoller, German anti-Nazi theologian (1892–1984)

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Twitter: Beginning of the Ban?

First it was ignored. Then it was regarded with amusement. And finally it seems that it is starting to be banned.

The English FA have today informed the squad that Twitter, Facebook et al are out of bounds to the players during and in the run up to the World Cup. All player comments are to be made exclusively through the FA's official website. Which provides a good reason for avoiding the said site, as we are bound to be treated to the usual bland PR speak characteristic of most post-match TV interviews.

The fact that such a ruling can be made by an employer without an apparent murmur reflects a level of restriction on freedom of speech and expression to a degree that our parents' generation would have found remarkable.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Vancouver Olympics Shows Influence of Beijing-Style Politics

"The Beijing Olympics were meant to make China more like Canada. Vancouver 2010 has managed the opposite."

So writes David Goldblatt in a recent article in Prospect Magazine.

Of particular concern is a law passed by the government of British Columbia giving police the power to enter homes and other premises displaying “anti-Olympic” signs.

The UK Parliament has passed a similar law in preparation for the 2012 Olympics in London - a classic exampe of the unhealthy "post-democratic" alliance of government with global firms.

I wonder whether there will ever be a backlash aginst the corporate dominance of professional sport.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

More on Police and Photographers

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

More on Police and the (Social) Media

Following yesterday's post about the refusal of a local paper to sign an indemnity form with Essex Police, which would restrict the paper's freedom to use a story in a way other than that proscribed by the force, two other related stories appeared on the radar.

First, the Met have started to request that images held in external databases showing officers with their number badges covered should be removed and not used. The Evening Standard describes this move as an attempt to "rewrite history".

Second, blogger Simon Collister claims to have received an "aggressive" voicemail from Dick Fedorcio, Director of Public Affairs and Corporate Communications at the Metropolitan Police, asking him to contact him if he planned on blogging about the Met in the future.

"He advised me, in a rather intimidating fashion, that if I planned on blogging about the Met again I should give him a call in advance."

I'm not easily shocked. But today, I am.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Local Paper Won't Play Ball With Police's Managed News Service

"It's a national form and the purpose of it is to ensure that the material they gather is used for the right purpose, and not used for some later story which is totally unrelated." So says a spokesman from Essex Constabulary as he describes an indemnity form used by the force which local media organisations were asked to sign before being giving access to a police photocall at a recently-discovered huge cannabis factory.

Although most media organisations signed the form, the Epping Forest Guardian declined to do so and was therefore barred from the photocall. Among other things, the indemnity form asked media companies to guarantee that material would not be "archived" for future use and would be used only in connection with the immediate "purpose" of the photocall. It also asked them to give an undertaking that no material would be used in a way that was "detrimental" to the Essex Constabulary.

Local editor Anthony Longden responds: "Our policy on indemnity forms is certainly nothing new - we don't sign them because they make what we consider to be unreasonable demands, and we prefer to protect our independence and our journalistic material."

The paper's refusal to sign resulted in it being initially denied access to the location , a fact that a police spokesman commented on: "I am aware that some have refused to sign it but they have missed out on a major opportunity. For this particular newspaper, it was probably their main story for this week's edition." The paper subsequently found out the location of the factory and has run several stories on the events there.

The police's attempt to manage this piece of news is regrettable and reflects an unhealthy trend towards curbing freedom of the press. It is unreasonable in a free society that the state/police should be allowed to determine the "purpose" of a news story or proscribe how it should be used in the future.

It's hard enough running a local newspaper these days. The Guardian are therefore to be especially commended for refusing to go along with this attempt by the police to manage the news. Essex police should stop using these indemnity forms and stop trying to control the media in this way.

I appreciate that Thomas Jefferson is not one often quoted this side of the Atlantic. On this matter, however, he has much to to say:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

and

"Information is the currency of democracy."

photo r0bz


If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Not so Funny People

In case we needed any proof that it is not only authoritarian governments that practice aggressive censorship of journalists, spare a thought for Brazilian journalist Fernanda Ezabella who has been blacklisted by the local representative of Universal Studios for asking director Judd Apatow an awkward question during a press conference about Universal's new film Funny People.

The story is as follows: Ezabella is attending the press conference on behalf of the magazine Folha de S. Paulo when, in the press pack handed out to journalists, she discovers a copy of a receipt for $1,375 for a limousine hired to bring the director the 9 miles from his home to the press conference.

Obviously, the receipt was not meant to be included, but in fact copies of it had made their way into each press pack due to an administrative error.

The observant Fernanda therefore asked a question of Judd Apatow along the lines of whether it could be justified in the present financial crisis, when staff are being laid off by studios, to pay nearly $1,400 for a limo to travel such a short distance.

Barely had the words left her mouth when Ezabella found the mocrophone hastily removed from her and attempts to ask a follow up question blocked by press officers. Her press pack was removed and, later, she found she had been blacklisted from future Universal press conferences.

I guess many of us have known for some time that there is an insanity at the heart of much of the corporate world and, perhaps it would be helpful for Universal if people with a concern for free speech and the integrity of the press took a break from paying any money to watch any Universal movies for a while until they have cleared up this nasty over-reaction. What do you think?

Current releases from Universal include A Perfect Getaway, Bruno and Public Enemies. Future releases include Funny People, Love Happens and The Wolfman. Were you so inclined, you could always contact Universal and let them know why you're watching something else instead.

Fernanda Ezabella's account of the incident (in Portugeuse) is here and my source for the story is here.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Satanic Verses - 20 Years On

A few links from commentators marking the 20th anniversary of the fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini against British writer Salman Rushdie over the publication of his novel The Satanic Verses.

A brief summary of the issue from the BBC web site.

Lisa Appignanesi comments on the ban from a non-censorship perspective.

The legacy of the fatwa was to make public criticism of Islam as a religion politically and socially unacceptable, says Kenan Malik.

Interview with Salman Rushdie from 1990.

The Times of India on the challenges of publishing "offensive" books post-Rusdie.

Members of the Iranian Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission explain why they believe the fatwa is still in force and should be implemented.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

The Intolerance of Elton John

Here's a quote from Elton John that ought to be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. If anyone else in public life said it, they would face consequences for their intolerance. The statement appears in the course of a wide-ranging discussion with Scissor Sisters' Jake Shears on the current state of the gay scene and is printed in the Observer newspaper.

The discussion turns to religion: "From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it .... but the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Here we have a prime example of the intolerance that is rife at the heart of the gay-so-called-rights movement. It's easy to see the steps that have lead to this arrogant opinion. First, Elton John assumes that gay sex is acceptable - an opinion held by many people; second, he identifies those who he sees as opposing this view (participants in "organised religion") ; third, he wants such people "banned" from holding those beliefs, if they are based in a religious world-view.

Admittedly, Elton John is not quite calling for a legal ban on organised religion (though one suspects that if one were put before Parliament, the logic of his view would be to support it.) He is expressing an opinion - that religion makes people hateful. That's his view and he's free to express it. The problem is what he wants to do in the light of his view on religion. If his only response to those who oppose homosexual acts on moral or religious grounds is to wish such people could be "banned", Elton John has become as intolerant as those he opposes.

Elton John apparently finds it difficult to conceive of living in a society where different people can co-exist while holding a variety of beliefs and opinions - some of which are strongly at odds with the beliefs of others. This, it seems to me, is at the heart of a free society. Banning opposing views is what fascists do. It's unworthy of a free and civilized society.

I'm reminded of a piece of graffiti I saw which read: "Oppress all oppressors and then hang yourself."

People who love freedom should be very concerned about Elton John's intolerance.