Censorship

Is it ever appropriate to crack sex jokes at work?  I hope so - since I’ve been known to do it on occasion.  But a recent one-liner made by a Canadian parliamentarian has prompted me to interrogate my risque behaviour, and reflect on the line that divides harmless suggestive bantering from sleazy unwanted innuendos.  When it comes to erotic talk at the office, is one person’s discomfort another person’s delight?  If so, how to tell the difference?  And what should be the consequences when we get our signals crossed?

Imagine that I am a teacher who has decided to teach my students about cultures other than their own. I want those students to understand that wearing a kirpan, a turban, a kipa, a hijab, or a niqab does not make a person less Canadian, less deserving of respect, or “abnormal.” So, I decide I will wear items belonging to my own cultural practices as a demonstration of how easily we can all interact with the diverse community around us. I choose, as a Muslim woman, to cover my hair with a hijab and cover my lower face with a niqab.

Debate around free expression today is fraught with confusion about true intentions and genuine meanings. Persistent and aggressive challenging of who has the right to define free expression, and an often intentional blurring of that definition can arrest discussion or send argument flying off into hyper-critical and combative corners of social media where it is often scattered and dispersed by bias and filters.

Six teenage boys dubbed the “Dropbox Six” were recently sentenced to a conditional discharge after pleading guilty to sharing “intimate images” contrary to s. 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

In the final days of 2016, the small island nation of Cuba mourned the passing of a political giant. Meanwhile, next door, superpower America nervously welcomed as the latest occupant of its highest office a gigantic bigot. To be sure, Fidel Castro’s passing was not mourned but celebrated in Little Havana in Miami, while Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was lamented by most of the Americans who voted in their federal election.

In the wake of attacks in Charlottesville, Virginia there were a number of rallies in Canadian cities.  The anti-racist counter-demonstrators hugely outnumbered their rally opponents, constituting phenomenal public solidarity against racism.  There was much to be cheered in these events. One thing dampened this amazing response.  It was how, for some, denouncing hate slid into denouncing speech rights and into dangerous calls for governments to prevent rallies.