Talk:Censorship in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tone

This currently reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. I gave the lead a little cleanup and tagged it. Ifnord 17:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Why is there a censorship in North America template if there is only one other country with a working link?

The line about increasing censorship of social conservatives cries out for a reference, and perhaps someone with better skills than me to parse it for POV.

The line has been modified and now reads: "Recently, censorship issues in Canada have had an increasing impact on those promoting social conservative views." I think this is currently true and somewhat justified by the Christine St-Pierre, Chris Kempling and CUSA examples cited in the article. However, I don't think much (if anything) would be lost by deleting the sentence entirely - it does read as an editorial statement and could easily be overidden by new censorship events occurring. (206.116.158.46 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] University Censorship

This section is a little unclear/a little POV (or so it reads for me). I'm not quite sure how, but it's worth looking at and either clarifying or eliminating for now. --Jammoe 07:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" which better reflects the actual policy. Anti-choice would be the best term, but I'm not sure that the issues involved would be as clear? The citation is very good, but I don't think it is properly formatted - don't know how to fix that :) (206.116.158.46 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Actually, anti-abortion in Wikipedia redirects to pro-life, probably based on the accepted common use of the term. By changing it to anti-abortion you are making a point experimentally on this page rather than taking the issue head-on in the main pro-life article. See WP:POINT for more information. ie., You should instead go and win your argument there by renaming the pro-life article, and then only if it sticks come back and change the naming convention used here. This is particularly true for controversial topics. Deet 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this even censorship at all? Just the student union denying space, funding, and saying they wont support it? That just puts the group on equal standing with non-recognized student groups and individuals. 24.5.79.220 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. Certainly their motivation was clearly to silence them on campus. However, their technique for white-washing may not have been directly censorship. Deet 01:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technically Incorrect

I don't think that the Canadian ratings are necessarily more lenient.

  • When CTV (At least our affiliate) aired some episodes of The Daily Show/Colbert Report, they were rated 14+. But underneath this Canadian icon was an unnecessarily large US icon that said TV-PG. NUMB3RS is regularly rated 14+, while only occasionally TV-14 in the U.S.

However, it is a little more acceptable (although not necessarily completely) to say that Québec TV ratings are more lenient than English Canadian ratings.

  • In Québec, Lord of the Rings was rated 8+, while in English Canada it was rated PG. Their 8+ can mean either C8 or PG, as they don't have an individual rating.

The article does not discuss ratings - which are strictly informational/advisory in nature - but actual broadcast standards which affects what can actually be shown. I think it is self-evident that currently Canadian standards are more lenient than American standards and is supported in examples throughout the article. (206.116.158.46 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)) i am so cool you are not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyerfart (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wait a minute!!!

Something might not be right with our safe haven. I have quickly viewed on APTN that they rebroadcast last night's "Night Owl movie" at 01:00 PM. Some of these movies during the night are rated 18+, and rebroadcast it during the day with the same rating. Are they just as uncut as the night that they aired, or are they slightly altered for daytime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Print

The paragraph that asserts that people can be disciplined by their employers for writing to newspapers is overly broad, and probably factually wrong as it's current written. This definitely needs a cite. Cerowyn (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

just click on either of the two names mentioned. there are citations in the linked articles. Deet (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

This article and Canadian Human Rights Commission are not particularly balanced. It seems someone had made it their mission to focus only on the CHRCs investigation into anti-Muslim bias and discrimination in print, making it appear that these are special cases, despite the fact that the CHRC prosecutes any kind of racism. The CHRC is best known for prosecuting anti-Semitism and white supremacy, and preventing the likes of Ernst Zundel and Paul Fromm from being effectively able to propagate their views in Canada. Yes, the United States has freedom of speech, but anti-Semitic and racist hate groups thrive there. Canadian law, at least, does not have any tolerance for racism. Get rid of the CHRC and the Nazis will have a party. WGoldfarb (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Fringe racist and hate groups in the U.S. are tiny, powerless jokes. A country, which protects only speech of which it approves, in fact has no freedom of speech at all.

When anyone may say disgusting, offensive things without going to jail, then you have a clear sign that freedom of speech is alive and healthy in that country. Censorship occurs when a society does not trust its good elements to vanquish the bad in an environment in which ideas may be freely exchanged.

Legitimate abuses of speech, such as libel and slander may be prosecuted in the courts. However, speech which merely hurts someone's feelings are now prosecuted by the HRC.

Canada's Orwellian-named Human Rights Commission perfectly illustrates how fundamental human rights in the West have begun to be stamped out by the state.

There are white supremists who are challenging section 13. However, there are also honorable people challenging this abominable provision, simply because it is the right thing to do.

If you want to "balance" the article by smearing the opponents of HRC, that is fine, because I trust folks to discern for themselves exactly what is happening, and to act soon to rescue what is left of their fragile liberty. But what will not work is any attempt to censor this article.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

-- Voltaire

Freedom Fan (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)