Sunday 5 February 2012

Encouraging ridicule & contempt?

Recent developments surrounding the “case” of a Fredericton resident who MAY be charged with libel demonstrate clearly how only one side of the story is being told.

The klaxon alarm has been sounding to protect the right of “freedom of expression” with the latest entry from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (http://tinyurl.com/7sukr5n)  

The CCLA jumped in with both feet to denounce the action of the Fredericton police in executing a search warrant at Charles LeBlanc’s room and seizing his computer equipment. It is common practice when police are investigating any incident related to the use of computers, such as child pornography, to seize the computer equipment for examination. Suddenly, in this instance, what is normal police operating procedure has acquired an evil tone. Puzzling.

The character of the CCLA letter is also puzzling. The organization has no more authority than the average citizen and yet their letter has a demanding tone in requesting information from the Fredericton Police Department as if the Department is required to answer their questions. They have no jurisdiction in this case other than what they self-assign.

While the CCLA offers criticism of the police action and pronouncements regarding Section 301 of the C.C.C., an important part of its argument can be found near the end of its letter to the Fredericton Chief of Police: “the use of police resources in this kind of investigation may place a chill on expression and discourage members of the community from speaking out on public issues that matter to them or criticizing the police even when such criticisms are valid and may ultimately benefit the public.”

The question is what exactly could be “chilled” by such an investigation? LeBlanc has consistently and repeatedly referred to members of the Fredericton Police Department and employees of the New Brunswick Legislature as racists and fascists. He has repeatedly used their pictures (one can only assume without permission) on his website and has defaced those pictures with Nazi swastikas and “gestapo” labels. He has repeatedly made disparaging comments about people of French heritage and those whom he believes to be connected to the province of Quebec. In short, he has subjected them to contempt and ridicule, one of the tests of the libel laws in this country.

And yet, very few are discussing LeBlanc’s actions. Mainstream media seems to ignore the content of his writing as if it has no bearing on the present situation. Never has any reporter challenged LeBlanc on his writing. If he was another identifiable public figure saying such things, the media would be all over him. One gets the impression the mainstream media is protecting LeBlanc and treating him with kid gloves while jumping all over those whom he chooses to criticize. It makes for a fascinating study of obvious media bias.

Rights do not supersede laws. I can enjoy my rights until such time as I cross the line. The present investigation is to determine (as I understand it) whether LeBlanc broke the law. Once that has been determined, the next step will be taken. No charges have been laid.

A right such as freedom of expression comes with responsibilities and one of the responsibilities is not to infringe on the rights of another. Libel laws were created for a very specific reason – to enable all of us to enjoy a good reputation without being held up to ridicule and contempt by another. Whether a libel has been committed is up to a court to decide but the investigation of a potential criminal libel is the jurisdiction of police work.

There has been too much talk on the part of the pseudo intelligentsia about this bringing a black mark onto Fredericton’s reputation; perhaps what they need to consider is how permitting and subtly encouraging the propagation of ridicule and contempt against very specific individuals including police officers, employees of the New Brunswick legislature and other public servants demonstrates their own particular biases towards those identifiable individuals and groups.

1 comment:

  1. Yay! Found one person that remembers more than just "yesterday's" stunt...+1 internets for not eating up everything you see/hear

    ReplyDelete