Canada Customs & Revenue Agency detains pro-Israel papers.
October 4, 2002 2:07 PM Subscribe
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency detains pro-Israel papers. Newsletters, from the California-based Ayn Rand Institute, defending "Israel's moral right to exist" that were destined for the University of Toronto, were confiscated so that the newsletters can be determined whether they constitute hate propaganda. The newsletter in question [pdf] was to be handed out at a at a meeting on Sunday. Dr. Brook, author of the newsletter, admits it is "radical" but isn't this censorship?
Do you think that Canada customs would have stopped such newsletters if they were defending "Palestinians' moral right to exist" that spewed similar idiocy for the other side?
Read the newsletter with that in mind, and I think you will come to the conclusion that the answer is "yes."
posted by zekinskia at 2:16 PM on October 4, 2002
Read the newsletter with that in mind, and I think you will come to the conclusion that the answer is "yes."
posted by zekinskia at 2:16 PM on October 4, 2002
Great Caesar's Ghost! A radical position from the Ayn Rand Institute?! Canada Customs with a stick up its bum over something that could conceivably offend someone?! Never could I have imagined such a world. Seriously, yes it's censorship and CC has been doing it for years. Give google the words 'little sisters canada customs' and you'll see that this is nothing new, just a different target.
posted by holycola at 2:18 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by holycola at 2:18 PM on October 4, 2002
Yes, it is censorship, but legal censorship under Canadian law, which is much more restrictive about "hate speech" (and also, I think, defines it more broadly). The debate over competing definitions of hate speech -- and different methods of dealing with it -- is a reasonable topic of discussion, but I'm underwhelmed by the rhetorical question that seems to be the point of this FPP.
posted by tingley at 2:23 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by tingley at 2:23 PM on October 4, 2002
The good thing about this is that now some Canadians not previously familiar with ARI will actually read this newsletter. Thanks, customs!
posted by dagny at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by dagny at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2002
Canada is fiercely devoted to its political impartiality; it's also had a long-standing reputation for its Customs & Immigration officers taking their jobs very seriously.
Faced with an Objectivist newsletter with a sensitive I/P theme, the authorities would've wasted no time in confiscating the material.
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:26 PM on October 4, 2002
Faced with an Objectivist newsletter with a sensitive I/P theme, the authorities would've wasted no time in confiscating the material.
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:26 PM on October 4, 2002
How censoring one opinion is "impartiality" beats me. Seems very partial, on the side of authoritarianism. Care to explain, Dalek?
posted by dagny at 2:31 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by dagny at 2:31 PM on October 4, 2002
Clearly Canada is racing with Ascroft to outdo the Patriot Act....any bets who will come out the winner?
posted by Postroad at 2:32 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by Postroad at 2:32 PM on October 4, 2002
dagny, "Impartial" refers to Canada's conceit that on an international scale, its position is "impartial", which basically means "opposed to war".
This skewered view is not unlike the double standard of the Great White North's "universal tolerance" that's often crowed about in tourism ads. In such cases, no mentions are made of the prior history of native tribe assimilations, racial tensions against other non-whites, and the fact that Montreal wishes to seecede from the rest of the country...
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:38 PM on October 4, 2002
This skewered view is not unlike the double standard of the Great White North's "universal tolerance" that's often crowed about in tourism ads. In such cases, no mentions are made of the prior history of native tribe assimilations, racial tensions against other non-whites, and the fact that Montreal wishes to seecede from the rest of the country...
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:38 PM on October 4, 2002
I don't like the way Canada censors. I don't like it when they do it with porn and gay-themed books, and I don't like it when they do it with Zionist Objectivist tracts that are chock full of distortions and bizarrities.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 3:08 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by RJ Reynolds at 3:08 PM on October 4, 2002
I agree with RJ Reynolds. The flyer is chock full of ugly distortions and lies, but what right does Canada have to censor it? I didn't see anything that qualified as 'hate speech' in my mind. Those Canadian customs people should move to China if they don't like free speech.
posted by Babylonian at 3:41 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by Babylonian at 3:41 PM on October 4, 2002
From the article in question:
On Wednesday, the president of the club, Ray Girn, received a letter from the CCRA saying the newsletters were being held.
"The following goods have been detained for a determination of tariff classification as they may constitute obscenity or hate propaganda. You will be notified in writing of the decision," the letter said.
In other words, no censorship has yet occurred, as CCRA is merely holding the documents while it considers censoring them. It would be premature to get your undergarments in such a twist until a ruling has been made. Customs delays of a day or two are not uncommon.
posted by cardboard at 3:44 PM on October 4, 2002
On Wednesday, the president of the club, Ray Girn, received a letter from the CCRA saying the newsletters were being held.
"The following goods have been detained for a determination of tariff classification as they may constitute obscenity or hate propaganda. You will be notified in writing of the decision," the letter said.
In other words, no censorship has yet occurred, as CCRA is merely holding the documents while it considers censoring them. It would be premature to get your undergarments in such a twist until a ruling has been made. Customs delays of a day or two are not uncommon.
posted by cardboard at 3:44 PM on October 4, 2002
(sidenote: what's up with ayn rand followers anyway? l. ron hubbard too sexy?)
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:04 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:04 PM on October 4, 2002
News links are frowned on.
I don't think most of the visitors here are paying much attention to the newsfilter arguement. What most of these people need is a meta chat room next to every link on fark.
I agree, the posting as of late has become more and more hurried and utterly worthless. The best links and stories are now pushed to the side, seeing little discussion, while we all argue over who would win: Bush or Saddam.
Update: I think that Bush link just got killed. Hoorah!
Anyway, what do you expect? It's a Steve_at_Linnwood post.
*ducks head and runs*
posted by velacroix at 4:10 PM on October 4, 2002
I don't think most of the visitors here are paying much attention to the newsfilter arguement. What most of these people need is a meta chat room next to every link on fark.
I agree, the posting as of late has become more and more hurried and utterly worthless. The best links and stories are now pushed to the side, seeing little discussion, while we all argue over who would win: Bush or Saddam.
Update: I think that Bush link just got killed. Hoorah!
Anyway, what do you expect? It's a Steve_at_Linnwood post.
*ducks head and runs*
posted by velacroix at 4:10 PM on October 4, 2002
DIGRESSION
no mentions are made of the prior history of native tribe assimilations, racial tensions against other non-whites...
Yup, all that happened/happens: Assimiliation, racial tensions; and, of course, Japanese internment, the Chinese head tax, Africville, Oka...
These were all tragic, regrettable, horrible episodes. But to say it invalidates Canada's remarkeable history of peacefully integrating people from all over the world is historically myopic. Toronto is the most diverse city on the planet; Quebec has transformed itself in three decades from a closed, xenophobic society ruled by the Catholic church into a model of diversity with very few hiccups or violence, compared to the rest of the planet.
, and the fact that Montreal wishes to seecede from the rest of the country...
No, Quebec wanted to secede; we wanted to stay.
/DIGRESSION
Back to the topic at hand, er keyboard: I've seen many of the monthly lists that Customs sends out listing all of the material they hold for review. The vast majority is questionable straight porn; gay porn is second, followed by political content running a distant third. And most of that stuff is the obvious National Alliance crap and the like, almost all from the States. It doesn't bother me it's banned; I'm just glad I'm not the Customs guy who has to spend their day wading through that filth.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:16 PM on October 4, 2002
no mentions are made of the prior history of native tribe assimilations, racial tensions against other non-whites...
Yup, all that happened/happens: Assimiliation, racial tensions; and, of course, Japanese internment, the Chinese head tax, Africville, Oka...
These were all tragic, regrettable, horrible episodes. But to say it invalidates Canada's remarkeable history of peacefully integrating people from all over the world is historically myopic. Toronto is the most diverse city on the planet; Quebec has transformed itself in three decades from a closed, xenophobic society ruled by the Catholic church into a model of diversity with very few hiccups or violence, compared to the rest of the planet.
, and the fact that Montreal wishes to seecede from the rest of the country...
No, Quebec wanted to secede; we wanted to stay.
/DIGRESSION
Back to the topic at hand, er keyboard: I've seen many of the monthly lists that Customs sends out listing all of the material they hold for review. The vast majority is questionable straight porn; gay porn is second, followed by political content running a distant third. And most of that stuff is the obvious National Alliance crap and the like, almost all from the States. It doesn't bother me it's banned; I'm just glad I'm not the Customs guy who has to spend their day wading through that filth.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:16 PM on October 4, 2002
This isn't that big a deal. Canada detains material on a pretty consistent basis. I vaguely recall the editor of a magazine mentioning in his note that all the copies of one issue sent north were detained (and/or shredded) because of one turn-of-the-century photo of one naked lady. The magazine itself published in the literary/general interest vein. Perhaps that's not representative of Canadian Customs' SOP, but if you have a law it will be abused at some point. That's just the reality of enforcement.
If they could show that Canadian Customs has recently become deeply suspicious of all, even remotely, pro-Israeli writings, then they'd have something. As is, this doesn't warrant much attention.
My turn to digress.
"We are justifying Israel's moral right to exist."
If there is no other reason to ban material I assume a country can ban it for being full-on stupid. (But then no one would've seen Dumb & Dumber.) Israel doesn't have a moral right to exist, that's ridiculous on the face. No country has a moral right to exist. Not the US, USSR, China, Australia, Myanmar whatever. Nation-states are based on power. If you don't have the power to hold a country together then you don't get a country. A country can run itself by a certain moral standard, but it cannot base it's existence on a moral standard. If a nation's moral existence argument could be made then the Native Americans would have all their land back.
posted by raaka at 5:03 PM on October 4, 2002
If they could show that Canadian Customs has recently become deeply suspicious of all, even remotely, pro-Israeli writings, then they'd have something. As is, this doesn't warrant much attention.
My turn to digress.
"We are justifying Israel's moral right to exist."
If there is no other reason to ban material I assume a country can ban it for being full-on stupid. (But then no one would've seen Dumb & Dumber.) Israel doesn't have a moral right to exist, that's ridiculous on the face. No country has a moral right to exist. Not the US, USSR, China, Australia, Myanmar whatever. Nation-states are based on power. If you don't have the power to hold a country together then you don't get a country. A country can run itself by a certain moral standard, but it cannot base it's existence on a moral standard. If a nation's moral existence argument could be made then the Native Americans would have all their land back.
posted by raaka at 5:03 PM on October 4, 2002
Toronto is the most diverse city on the planet;
Have you been to New York City? I've been to Toronto; beautiful place, quite diverse, but nothing like NYC (my home town).
Now just wait for the newsletter from the Ayn Marx Institute ...
posted by Ayn Marx at 5:22 PM on October 4, 2002
Have you been to New York City? I've been to Toronto; beautiful place, quite diverse, but nothing like NYC (my home town).
Now just wait for the newsletter from the Ayn Marx Institute ...
posted by Ayn Marx at 5:22 PM on October 4, 2002
The issue here is not, what the newsletter says, I linked it simply for reference, but the censorship of political ideas and agendas. If you agree or disagree with what the newsletter says, is irrelevant.
News links are frowned on.
Well Mick, you have a lot of other threads to post this in tonight... Funny how this pops up when I post....
velacroix: When you start contributing to the front page, then you can talk about the quality of my posts.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:35 PM on October 4, 2002
News links are frowned on.
Well Mick, you have a lot of other threads to post this in tonight... Funny how this pops up when I post....
velacroix: When you start contributing to the front page, then you can talk about the quality of my posts.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:35 PM on October 4, 2002
When you start contributing to the front page, then you can talk about the quality of my posts.
oh jeez. what an ass-backwards thing to say. thank goodness more people don't post as frequently, and as single-mindedly, as you seem to.
person a: "murder is bad."
person b: "when you start killing people, then we'll talk."
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:00 PM on October 4, 2002
oh jeez. what an ass-backwards thing to say. thank goodness more people don't post as frequently, and as single-mindedly, as you seem to.
person a: "murder is bad."
person b: "when you start killing people, then we'll talk."
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:00 PM on October 4, 2002
ah, donkeyshlong rears his ugly head.....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:01 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:01 PM on October 4, 2002
I wonder what Ayn Rand would have really thought about the whole situation with Isreal. They don't really seem to be following her prescripts, but she wasn't exactly a deep thinker.
Also, canada tried to ban Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses so the are equal opportunity facists.
posted by delmoi at 8:21 PM on October 4, 2002
Also, canada tried to ban Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses so the are equal opportunity facists.
posted by delmoi at 8:21 PM on October 4, 2002
Also, canada tried to ban Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses so the are equal opportunity facists.
Er, I just realized that banning the Satanic Verses takes the same position as banning pro-isreal stuff, sort of.
posted by delmoi at 8:22 PM on October 4, 2002
Er, I just realized that banning the Satanic Verses takes the same position as banning pro-isreal stuff, sort of.
posted by delmoi at 8:22 PM on October 4, 2002
Canada doesn't have any right to free speech, does it? As far as I know they have no equivalent to the US's First Amendment, nor does the UK or Australia.
One of the reasons why we left, I think.
posted by nyxxxx at 8:28 PM on October 4, 2002
One of the reasons why we left, I think.
posted by nyxxxx at 8:28 PM on October 4, 2002
...no censorship has yet occurred, as CCRA is merely holding the documents while it considers censoring them. It would be premature to get your undergarments in such a twist until a ruling has been made. Customs delays of a day or two are not uncommon.
It does turn out, happily, that they've decided to allow us to see the dangeous pamplets after all. But I disagree that it's unreasonable to be incensed at even the temporary detainment of such material for the purpose of evaluating its level of political correctness. Admitting their right to evaluate the material is admitting their right to censor it. It's kind of like saying you shouldn't be upset if a burglar enters your house, but should instead wait to see if he actually steals something.
posted by mw at 8:41 PM on October 4, 2002
It does turn out, happily, that they've decided to allow us to see the dangeous pamplets after all. But I disagree that it's unreasonable to be incensed at even the temporary detainment of such material for the purpose of evaluating its level of political correctness. Admitting their right to evaluate the material is admitting their right to censor it. It's kind of like saying you shouldn't be upset if a burglar enters your house, but should instead wait to see if he actually steals something.
posted by mw at 8:41 PM on October 4, 2002
The Canadian gov't has long been leery of things even tangentially touching on the long and drawn out affair of the regrettably famous 'holocaust deniers' from a while back, and is quite firm about 'hate speech'. Some background here, and a googlesearch yields tons of references for the interested.
Regardless of whether you deem it censorship or not, I'd say calling it a matter of 'political correctness' is putting up a strawman, mw.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:04 PM on October 4, 2002
Regardless of whether you deem it censorship or not, I'd say calling it a matter of 'political correctness' is putting up a strawman, mw.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:04 PM on October 4, 2002
The funny thing about those who would censor is how charmingly anachronistic they are. Here we are, on MeFi, having an actual discussion - in which Canadians are present - about the text of the document itself (which is, of course, easily available over the internet), while the Canadian government is holding the printed version, wrestling over the question of whether Canadians ought to be able to have access to it. Doesn't this strike anyone as being, er, kinda odd. Almost surreal? And (speaking of Ayn Rand) sort of a waste of tax dollars?
Exactly what sort of sense does it make for Canadians to read materials online, and then have a discussion about whether their government ought to - um, well, to let them see the materials that they are already discussing?
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:55 PM on October 4, 2002
Exactly what sort of sense does it make for Canadians to read materials online, and then have a discussion about whether their government ought to - um, well, to let them see the materials that they are already discussing?
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:55 PM on October 4, 2002
Have you been to New York City? I've been to Toronto; beautiful place, quite diverse, but nothing like NYC (my home town).
i lived in nyc for 2 years and didn't note a difference in diversity at all. when were you in t.o. last...? we have aprox. 169 different nationalities, speaking 100 diff languages, and aprox. 294 different cultures represented in toronto. visible minorities make up 54% of our population, in contrast to nyc's aprox. 28%. also of note, according to the dept for heritage:
"By 2006, one in six Canadians will be a member of a visible minority. Toronto, the largest city in Canada's largest province, will be the world's most multicultural city, ahead of New York and London. Vancouver, with the fastest growing and most diverse immigrant population in Canada, will be among the world's most integrated cities."
mind you i'm working from stats gathered in 2000. if i was awake enough to look for newer stats (altho' what's avail online is usually outdated so i rely on hard copy instead) we'd probably find that the # of nationalities has surpassed 169. our recent cultural growth has been fairly explosive when you consider that in 1961 only 3% of our population was "non-white", and then in 1991 it was still only 30%. but toronto (formerly the county of york) is a 250 year old city, so we've had a good long time to recreate the world in our backyard.
so, anyways, come back and visit again soon ;-)
Canada doesn't have any right to free speech, does it? As far as I know they have no equivalent to the US's First Amendment, nor does the UK or Australia.
good lord, just reading that, let alone bothering to respond, wore me out LOL! say g'night tracy.
posted by t r a c y at 10:33 PM on October 4, 2002
i lived in nyc for 2 years and didn't note a difference in diversity at all. when were you in t.o. last...? we have aprox. 169 different nationalities, speaking 100 diff languages, and aprox. 294 different cultures represented in toronto. visible minorities make up 54% of our population, in contrast to nyc's aprox. 28%. also of note, according to the dept for heritage:
"By 2006, one in six Canadians will be a member of a visible minority. Toronto, the largest city in Canada's largest province, will be the world's most multicultural city, ahead of New York and London. Vancouver, with the fastest growing and most diverse immigrant population in Canada, will be among the world's most integrated cities."
mind you i'm working from stats gathered in 2000. if i was awake enough to look for newer stats (altho' what's avail online is usually outdated so i rely on hard copy instead) we'd probably find that the # of nationalities has surpassed 169. our recent cultural growth has been fairly explosive when you consider that in 1961 only 3% of our population was "non-white", and then in 1991 it was still only 30%. but toronto (formerly the county of york) is a 250 year old city, so we've had a good long time to recreate the world in our backyard.
so, anyways, come back and visit again soon ;-)
Canada doesn't have any right to free speech, does it? As far as I know they have no equivalent to the US's First Amendment, nor does the UK or Australia.
good lord, just reading that, let alone bothering to respond, wore me out LOL! say g'night tracy.
posted by t r a c y at 10:33 PM on October 4, 2002
Well, it's been pointed out to me several times by people in the UK that I talk to, in newsgroups, that Free Speech isn't the fundamental right there that it is in the US.
Am I wrong? Does Canada have anything equivalent to a written constitution that gurantees free speech?
If so, please give me a link.
posted by nyxxxx at 12:20 AM on October 5, 2002
Am I wrong? Does Canada have anything equivalent to a written constitution that gurantees free speech?
If so, please give me a link.
posted by nyxxxx at 12:20 AM on October 5, 2002
Not too hard to find, nyxxxx.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states :
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:34 AM on October 5, 2002
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states :
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:34 AM on October 5, 2002
Well, it's been pointed out to me several times by people in the UK that I talk to, in newsgroups, that Free Speech isn't the fundamental right there that it is in the US.
Am I wrong? Does Canada have anything equivalent to a written constitution that gurantees free speech?
Canada, interestingly enough, isn't in the UK. If you look at a map of North America, it's right above the US. Now if you'll pardon me, I seem to have left my snow shoes back at the igloo and I was just aboot to go harpoon me some baby seals for dinner.
(don't bother getting too mad at me. the second tracy sees this i'll get smacked and scolded)
posted by zarah at 1:00 AM on October 5, 2002
Am I wrong? Does Canada have anything equivalent to a written constitution that gurantees free speech?
Canada, interestingly enough, isn't in the UK. If you look at a map of North America, it's right above the US. Now if you'll pardon me, I seem to have left my snow shoes back at the igloo and I was just aboot to go harpoon me some baby seals for dinner.
(don't bother getting too mad at me. the second tracy sees this i'll get smacked and scolded)
posted by zarah at 1:00 AM on October 5, 2002
Also, canada tried to ban Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses so the are equal opportunity facists.
Trying to outlaw hate is like trying to take the "ass" out of asinine. Try outlawing love, too, while you're at it, Canada.
Criminy. Censorship? Yes. Weird? Yes, pertaining to MidasMulligan's comments. They already have the damn documents, if they can access MetaFilter!
Ayn Rand Institute's stance on "Israel's moral right to exist"?
No-holds barred, straight truth.
posted by hama7 at 2:16 AM on October 5, 2002
Trying to outlaw hate is like trying to take the "ass" out of asinine. Try outlawing love, too, while you're at it, Canada.
Criminy. Censorship? Yes. Weird? Yes, pertaining to MidasMulligan's comments. They already have the damn documents, if they can access MetaFilter!
Ayn Rand Institute's stance on "Israel's moral right to exist"?
No-holds barred, straight truth.
posted by hama7 at 2:16 AM on October 5, 2002
Uh, pardon my French, but do you turkeys have any proof Canada tried tried to ban The Satanic Verses?
I've looked through the full archives of the Canadian Press and The Toronto Star and found bupkis. Yes, it was detained at the border for a day, but then let through; yes, Air Canada -- at the time no longer a Crown corporation -- for a time said Mr Rushdie would have to find another carrier to fly the friendly skies. A Muslim group tried to get an injunction against the book, but failed.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:07 AM on October 5, 2002
I've looked through the full archives of the Canadian Press and The Toronto Star and found bupkis. Yes, it was detained at the border for a day, but then let through; yes, Air Canada -- at the time no longer a Crown corporation -- for a time said Mr Rushdie would have to find another carrier to fly the friendly skies. A Muslim group tried to get an injunction against the book, but failed.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:07 AM on October 5, 2002
I bought The Satanic Verses at a Chapters in Montreal, two years ago, if it's any help. Good book.
posted by Marquis at 1:54 PM on October 5, 2002
posted by Marquis at 1:54 PM on October 5, 2002
it wasn't banned, it was delayed for 48 hours on february 28th, 1989 (ironically this was also "freedom to read" day) to determine whether it fell under our hate laws or not, which it didn't. i bought my copy of it the following week. that was 13 years ago.
right now neither canada nor the usa are censorship free societies and it's not likely we or anyone else ever will be, for a variety of reasons and not all of them nefarious. the best we can hope for is to live in a society that gives us the right to legally challenge what we view as censorship, and currently that's precisely what we have.
posted by t r a c y at 3:01 PM on October 5, 2002
right now neither canada nor the usa are censorship free societies and it's not likely we or anyone else ever will be, for a variety of reasons and not all of them nefarious. the best we can hope for is to live in a society that gives us the right to legally challenge what we view as censorship, and currently that's precisely what we have.
posted by t r a c y at 3:01 PM on October 5, 2002
« Older Twenty-five years after the Mirage. | How Much is a Human Life Worth? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dagny at 2:13 PM on October 4, 2002