Face-off: Battling a war of words
Do laws that make it a crime to speak in support of our enemies go too far?
Karen Selick and Michael Coren - February 27, 2006
Note: Karen Selick is on leave. Graciously filling in for her is National Post editorial board member Marni Soupcoff.
From: Marni Soupcoff
To: Michael Coren
Date: Feb 13, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: Should pro-terror sentiments be banned?
It's a leader's responsibility to protect his country from attack. But what happens when a leader takes that responsibility to the extreme and starts broadly limiting what his citizens may say and do, in a flailing effort to fight off unknown threats? Australia, sadly, seems to be heading down that road. In an effort to fight terror, Prime Minister John Howard is seeking to expand the country's sedition laws so that sentences will be longer and it will be a crime to "assist, by any means whatever, an organization or country . . . at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared." That's a pretty vague standard of speech for a democratic country, and it doesn't leave much room for dissent. Mind you, the Aussies are in good company since the U.K. has already banned "the glorification of terrorism." Is Canada next?
From: Michael Coren
To: Marni Soupcoff
Date: Feb 13, 2006 11:29 AM
Subject: re: Should pro-terror sentiments be banned?
I hope so. Because there is a war going on and any government worth the name has a duty to defend its people. Australia is to a large extent following the British model, and in the United Kingdom the new legislation has not curtailed the liberty of innocent people. What it has enabled is the arrest of those who try to indoctrinate others into extremist and potentially violent organizations. Whilst the "glorification" of terrorism is illegal, activists can still praise various terrorist groups and argue their case in public. What they cannot do is call for people to be killed, or directly urge other citizens to indulge in terror, or finance and support known terrorists. In Canada we encourage, rather than control, groups such as the Tamil Tigers, and ignore the activities of numerous terrorist gangs. One can only hope that our new government will, as it were, jump on the kangaroo and stand up to our enemies.
From: Marni Soupcoff
To: Michael Coren
Date: Feb 13, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: re: Should pro-terror sentiments be banned?
The Conservative government would have to have its head in a pouch (sorry, couldn't resist a marsupial joke) not to realize that following in the Aussies' and Brits' footsteps would have a serious chilling effect on Canadians' speech. By all means, our government should do what it can to protect us from harm, but not to the extent that we are no longer allowed to speak in favour of organizations or groups that the government dislikes. True freedom is strong enough to withstand all the verbal taunts, jeers and arguments that anyone can throw at it. But it will never have the chance to triumph if we're not even allowed to have the debate. While I agree that actual acts of terror and aggression (such as those committed by the Tamil Tigers) must be vigorously prosecuted, ideas should not be. Exposing them to the light of day will do more good.
From: Michael Coren
To: Marni Soupcoff
Date: Feb 13, 2006 3:37 PM
Subject: re: Should pro-terror sentiments be banned?
Page 1 of 2