Don't kill the messenger
The parable
One fateful day during the height of the war, the king sat wearily on his throne, rubbing his tired eyes with the palm of his hand. The war was not going well for the king.
His messenger suddenly rushed into the court, his robes aflutter. Everyone bowed as the messenger made his breathless way to the king. He stopped before the king and kneeled.
"Your Highness, please forgive me, but I have terrible news."
The king moaned.
"Aaaaahhhhh..."
Everyone shivered in his and her finely decorated robes, for when the king moaned, something terrible was sure to follow. A long pause ensued. One of the pages peeked at the king, trying to gauge his mood. The king was rubbing his temples in long, slow circles. Again, not a good sign.
"What say you, messenger?" The king finally rumbled, tugging at his beard.
"The enemy makes his final advance from the south, your Highness. We do not have food or supplies to maintain the men. The general sent me to recommend surrender. Or else we all die."
"AAAHHHHHH!" the king cried, much longer and with more resonance than before, and almost ripped his beard from his skin. Now, everyone trembled. Something bad was about to go down.
The king suddenly jumped up, whipped his sword out of his sheath, and beheaded the messenger. The head rolled around and banged against the foot of the throne as the king stood, mighty and pitiless, before the eyes of his horrified and terrified court.
"Let this be a lesson to you all," he growled, eyes blazing with madness as he swung his blade around slowly, pointing at everyone in the room. "From now on, all the news will be ... good."
The argument
This episode of Why Messengers Hate Their Job - you know, from BBC's Shakespeare Theatre - came to mind when I reviewed the letters that the Manitoban received concerning Hymie Rubenstein's letter that was printed in the Oct. 29 issue of the Manitoban. Rubenstein's letter criticized my article that advocated for same-sex marriage.
The interesting thing is, most of the letters did not denounce Rubenstein's position. Rather, they denounced the Manitoban for printing his letter in the first place.
While these letters all differ subtly, the song sings the same. Namely, the Manitoban both contradicted its policy not to print homophobic content and the Manitoban contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by printing hate literature - and by doing so, endorsed Rubenstein's position.
In response to the first charge, the Manitoban is, first and foremost, a student paper that recognizes the importance of free speech. We debate the merit of each and every one of our submissions that is potentially controversial. And the content of that debate is always, always, always whether or not we have a duty to print a potentially controversial piece for the sake of free speech and the purpose of dialogue. At the end of the day, we decided that printing Rubenstein's letter served these purposes better rather than censoring his opinion.
Second of all, while Rubenstein's letter clearly is not in favour of homosexuality, the explicit meaning of his letter buzzes and flits around enough so that one cannot squish it with the homophobic fly swatter. Rubenstein, for instance, does not call for the extermination of all homosexuals. He is stating his opinion - albeit of the most dubious substance - that homosexuality is "unnatural."
While Rubenstein's stance leaves a bad taste in our mouth, the simple fact is the responsibility for responding to his opinion does not rest with the Manitoban by censoring his opinion. The responsibility for responding to his opinion rests with you, the reader. The Manitoban is not going to hold your hand and tell you what you can or cannot handle. And in the end, for people to accuse the Manitoban of not using its power to thwart the publishing of Rubenstein's opinion - however motivated by hate it may be - is more harmful to the basic freedom of expression and speech that we all enjoy than a thousand of Rubenstein's opinions.
In the end, the "kill the messenger and thus kill the message" strategy employed by these people who advocate political correctness to the point of absurdity, suppresses dialogue and suppresses free expression in the vain hope of doing away with all those things that are ugly and painful in society.
We must not be complacent. We must not allow persecution of those who cannot defend themselves to continue. But we cannot make the mistake of assuming that by repressing someone's beliefs that those beliefs will go away. That by planting one's head in the sand and censoring these hurtful and vile things will make them disappear. That by ignoring the threat on the horizon, that it will not come thundering up to our castle in which we sit numb, blind, deaf, and dumb, and confirm our worst fears.
And worst of all, the self-delusion that by acting in the name of ethics and morality, that censorship becomes a necessary means to an end.
Rather, it is an end to a means: the end of freedom because people are too scared to say the politically incorrect thing, when politically incorrect dialogue is one of the fundamental building blocks of democracy.
While we can all agree that total freedom of expression is dangerous, so too is unchecked and reckless censorship.
And for critics of the Manitoban to believe otherwise is just plain foolishness.