September 29, 2004 ) | Opinion Page 9
Freedom of Speech, Censorship, and

Discrimination in the Modern World

Editorial
By Carolynne Burkholder
>> Editor in Chief

In a democratic society such as
Canada, free speech and freedom
of the press is essential for main-
taining the status of life we have
become accustomed to. On the
other hand, freedom from harass-
ment and discrimination is also
essential to maintaining societal
order. Problems begin to arise
when these two issues come into
conflict with one another, as they
inevitably do.

Where do you draw the line
between freedom of speech, and
the right for people to be free from
discrimination and harassment?

According to Boris DeWiel, a
Political Science Professor at

>> The Constitution
Act, 1982

Canadian Charter of Rights and |

Freedoms

Guarantee of Rights and

Freedoms

Section 1.

The Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms guarantees
the rights and freedoms set out in

it subject only to such reasonable’

limits prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free
and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

Section 2.

Everyone has the following fun-
damental freedoms: (a) freedom
of consciences and religion; (b)
freedom of thought, belief, opinion

and expression, including free-

dom of the press and other media
of communication; (c) freedom of
peaceful assembly; (d) freedom of
association.

UNBC, “Free speech is one of our
most important democratic values,
however sometimes the value of
free speech needs to be balanced
with other democratic values, such
as equality and respect for other
persons.” It is a delicate balance
that needs to be achieved between
these two contentious issues.

In response to one of the articles
published in the last issue of Over
the Edge, this debate has come to
the forefront of University discus-
sion. What was initially meant as a
satirical comment about a domi-
nant group in our society has been
interpreted by some as extremely
offensive. One person has even
gone so far as accusing Over the
Edge, and“me personally, of pub-
lishing hate literature.

>> UNIVERSITY OF
NORTHERN BRITISH
COLUMBIA
Policies and Procedures
SUBJECT: HARASSMENT &
DISCRIMINATION
1. Statement of Principles
1.1 The University of Northern
British Columbia acknowledges
the right of all individuals in the

University Community to work or |

leatn without discrimination or
harassment because of race,
colour, ancestry, place of origin,
religion, family status, marital sta-
tus, physical disability, mental dis-
ability, sex, age, sexual orienta-
tion, political beliefs or criminal or

lated to their employment.

1.2 This policy in general ... fis]
not to be applied in such a way as
to detract from the right of faculty,
staff and students to engage in
the frank discussion of potentially
controversial matters.

- the University’s

lam very disturbed by this accu-
sation, and therefore feel it neces-
sary to address this issue publicly.

I would like to take this oppor-
tunity to address Over the Edge’s
position on this issue. As the
Editor in Chief, I view Over the
Edge as a médium for student
debate. Unfortunately, this leaves
us dealing with many controver-
sial issues, which are submitted to
Over the Edge as letters to the
Editor. We then have to deal with
what Opinions Pieces we should
choose to publish, and more
importantly, which we should
refuse.

Our Editorial Board often refers
to our own Constitution, as well as
Policies and
Procedures, along with the
Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms when deciding whether
to print an article. The article in
question, in our view, fell within
the subject matter allowed by these
three works.

Upon meeting with the UNBC
Harassment and Discrimination
Officer, myself and other members
of our Editorial Board were made
aware of many options that are
available to us to make sure that
this kind of problem does not arise
in the future. Over the Edge will
now be asking advice in interpret-
ing the UNBC Policies and
Procedures from the Harassment
and Discrimination Officer.

On behalf of Over the Edge, Iam
deeply sorry if any of the articles
we have published have made you
feel unwelcome or unsafe on cam-
pus here at UNBC. This was never
our intention.

Over the Edge will continue
publishing controversial issues in
order to inform students and spark
student debate. I will, however, try
my best to make sure that this will
be done in such a way that is not
an infringement on the rights of
specific groups of students.

>> Over the Edge
Newspaper
Constitution

Section 4 - Responsibilities

4.1 The purposes of Over the
Edge are:

d) act in a manner that is com-
patible with the principles enunci-
ated in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms

4.2 All members of Over the
Edge shali be expected to
achieve the following set of stan-
dards when working. All members
should look to exceed these stan-
dards so that the journalistic
integrity of Over the Edge shall be

a ; maintained.
summary conviction offence unre- |

a) All contributors of Over the

| Edge shall strive to be objective
| and impartial observers when

reporting news.

b) Reporters of Over the Edge
shall strive to be independent
from potential bias and conflict of
interest.

Letters

Responses to “Man
in the Modern World”

These letters do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of Over the Edge or UNBC.

Dear Editor,

Over the Edge certainly lived
up to its name with the publica-
tion of the article “Men in the
Modern World” in the September
15th edition. A student pointed
the article out to me, and asked
me what I thought. I was sur-
prised and disappointed that the
article was even printed. The
thesis of “Men in the Modern
World” states that a single identi-

fiable group has caused most of

the problems in the world, and
that as soon as that group has
outlived its usefulness it should
be “...forced into non existence
for the safety of the entire earth.”
This idea is proposed by another
identifiable group, which one

can assume has suffered from the ©

afore mentioned problems and
thus hopes that their condition
will be ameliorated when the
root of the problem disappears.
To promote the destruction of a
group in this manner is a form of
violence that is offensive, and
dangerous. However, it is not
the author of the article who
should be questioned. One must
question the publisher that chose
to display an object of violence
that reflects a discredited per-
spective from the last century.

UNBC should not sanction
forms of.expression that violate
its own policies designed to
maintain a safe environment for
all, while building a collegial
atmosphere. Over the Edge has a
minimal responsibility, as a stu-
dent funded paper representing
the university to be accountable
to these policies. The paper
should not be an agent of dis-
crimination, marginalization, or
hate.

It has been argued that the arti-
cle, as an opinion piece is an
example of free speech, that it is
satire, humour, and even trivial.
These labels do not justify rea-
sons for publication when the
message is so obviously destruc-
tive. Jokes that derive their
humour from the denigration of
others are a form of violence.
Free speech should not become a
mantra to justify corrosive ideas
in the public domain if for no
other reason than it denigrates its
own legitimacy.

When Over the Edge pub-
lished “Men in the Modern
World” they became the instru-
ment by which the article’s dom-
inant message was transferred to
the public domain. In doing so,
the paper became culpable as
that agent, and thus must face
the consequences. There is a
powerful lesson here. Over the
Edge is embroiled in a controver-
sy that one can safely assume
they did not wish to create. They
did not write the article; howev-
er, if they did not publish it, the
writing would have remained in

the private domain where it
would render less harm, and be
essentially immune from public
sanction. The fact that the article
was published suggests that the
paper did not think too deeply
about the consequences of their
choice and, as such they may not
recognize that they have a
responsibility to ensure that they
do not inflict harm either to stu-
dents, or the environment within
UNBC.

From Ross Sandwell

Dear Over the edge,

I already stopped by your
office to indicate how I felt about
NUGSS's rather asinine approach
to “Sera Noosbig”’s article. You
have my full support. heard
today that NUGSS was freezing
the paper’s funding. This is
absurd.If you have any plans for
protesting this and could use
help, please let me know. If noth-
ing else, I would like to have
some sort of petition for NUGSS
against this stupidity.I guess free-
dom of the press is really just
symbolic these days.

From David Vogt

Dear Editor,

I would like to, if I may,
respond to the letter written by
Ms. Sera N. Noosbig. I will not
make her statements true by
responding in a childlike and
immature manner. Rather, I
would simply like to argue the
finer points of her article, and
perhaps, bring some credibility
back to my gender, although that
might be beyond the reach of a
single individual. First, it is noth-
ing but human conceit that
allows us to believe that we can
destroy the Earth. We might
destroy ourselves, and other life,
but it is pretty much unbeliev-
able that we can destroy the
entire planet. And as for
advanced societies devoting time
and money to weapons of mass
destructions, well, there is a good
reason for that, as will be
revealed later.

Next, allow me to take issue
with Ms. Noosbig’s claim that
“everything they’ve [men] been
good for... has become obsolete
and dangerous to the modern
world,” This is untrue. Her asser-
tion that.our (men) superior mus-
cle strength is no longer neces-

‘sary because of machines, while

basically true, does not factor in
the inventors of said machines,
who are almost guaranteed to be
male. Since Ms. Noosbig did not
specify a machine, I can not say

>> continued on page 10