OTTAWA—The real test of standing up for strong principles, most would agree, is defending them at home and afar.
The current federal government has taken strong stands on gay rights (for), abortion (against) and maternal health (for) in foreign nations.
Yet here at home in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is a bit more hands-off on those very matters.
So it is at the moment with freedom of expression and the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris this month.
Though Harper did not march in the leaders’ parade in Paris last week, Canada’s Prime Minister described the tragedy as “an assault on democracy” and an attack on the “most cherished principles” of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
He was correct, of course. When the choice is between freedom of expression or violent death, most sane and sensible people know what side they’re on.
But what happens when freedom of expression collides with the need to win elections or manage the message, or with the everyday discipline of power?
Later this month, a new book will be released: Kill the Messengers, a sweeping and sobering read by Ottawa author Mark Bourrie on all the ways in which freedom of the press and expression have been anything but “cherished” in the prevailing political climate in Canada this past decade.
The book as well as the Charlie Hebdo statements have me thinking about all the ways in which a government truly in favour of freedom of expression could walk the talk at home, too. Here are just a few suggestions:
We keep being told that it’s just a bureaucratic coincidence to see so many critics of the government facing audits and revocation of their charitable status since these audits started in 2012 — from Amnesty International to Kitchener birdwatchers to the David Suzuki Foundation.
But PEN Canada? Really? When auditors showed up last summer at the doors of PEN — an organization devoted to free expression, for heaven’s sake — the whole exercise became officially creepy.
Whether the government is directing them or not, the audits are creating a climate of what’s been called “advocacy chill” — people and organizations afraid they’ll be punished for speaking out against the state. Back in the 20th century, we called this “McCarthyism” or “Nixonian” governance.
This is a tried-and-true Conservative cash grab, whipping up antipathy to the “media party” to cast a nine-year-old government as perpetual outsiders in Ottawa. But does a party purportedly in favour of journalists’ free expression send out missives like this one, dispatched to Conservatives in an email blast last summer?
“We’re up against the Liberals and the NDP in the next election, but we also have to fight an uphill battle against all their friends in the Ottawa media. Since we can’t count on fair coverage, we’re going to need to speak directly to voters. It’s not cheap, but it’s the only option.”
Note that the message here is that expression is anything but free, and, to be fair, they are right: it is actually quite expensive to produce those 24-7 video documentaries every week in the PMO.
We haven’t heard much about them since the 2013 cabinet shuffle, but apparently new ministers were given guidance on citizens, groups and bureaucrats to avoid when they were handed their briefing books that summer. The Star and other media organizations learned of these lists through a leaked PMO email on checklists for the briefing books. The very fact that the Prime Minister’s Office would use the term “enemy” in an email or a briefing book speaks to a certain intolerance of free expression by the highest political office in the land.
There are countless other examples of people who have paid a price for speaking their minds in the clamped-down political climate in Ottawa — bureaucrats, scientists, whistleblowers, government watchdogs.
Prime ministerial news conferences are rarer than lunar eclipses, and the PMO has been making renewed efforts to get journalists clearing their questions before posing them to the PM.
Meanwhile, because of the ever-more-present dangers of terrorism, the coming months are expected to bring new, beefed-up security measures, which will present Canada with some real, hard choices between their safety and their freedoms.
It will be interesting to see whether freedom of expression remains a “cherished” principle in this debate. In fact, there’s ample evidence already to illustrate that this freedom is somewhat more cherished at long distance by this government than it is at home in Canada.
Source: thestar.com/
Author: Susan Delacourt
No comments:
Post a Comment