Further to the controversy discussed here, this week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the debate surrounding a pro-life TV ad, and the broader debate about whether there should be an abortion debate:
...What has made this a story, however, is not so much the content of the ad itself, but rather the decision to air it. That decision, as you can imagine, is not sitting well with everyone.
A spokeswoman for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada called the ad "disturbing, offensive and frightening," and suggested it could incite violence against those providing abortions or those seeking them.
Those opposed to abortion may be on the losing end policy-wise, but opposition to abortion is still a legitimate political opinion, one held by millions of Canadians. The suggestion that some holders of that opinion are possibly capable of violence is a flimsy excuse for censorship.
This is not the first time pro-life groups have presented such images -- the recent controversy over the display used by the U of C's Campus Pro Life is but one example.
No violence followed that display, and assuming a similar calm prevails in Kelowna, this canard should be laid to rest.
There is nothing at all violent in this particular ad. The appearance of a severed hand might seem jarring to some, but that hardly constitutes a call to arms.
Incitement is a clearly defined legal term. Having and expressing a strong opinion on something does not in any way meet that definition.
Ironically, the debate over the airing of pro-life ads has raged south of the border. An ad from the group Focus on the Family, which features college football star Tim Tebow, has apparently been given the green light for Super Bowl halftime by CBS.
I wonder, however, if those who took up the free speech banner in the battle over this ad will come to the defence of the ads rejected by CBS, including one for an online dating service for gay men.
Whether there exists a lack of commitment to freedom of expression on the part of pro-lifers or social conservatives in general is irrelevant to the question of whether their freedom of expression is deserving of protection. And it most certainly is.
Private media outlets shouldn't be forced to run each and every ad that comes their way. But if a media outlet is prepared to allow ads of a political nature, it ought not single out and exclude certain legitimate points of view.
Furthermore, with Canada's broadcasters very publicly pleading poverty, it would certainly weaken their position to be seen turning down ad revenue because they frown on certain political opinions.
For those who are dismayed by the content of the Kelowna Right to Life ad, or merely fear that it might sway public opinion, the opportunity exists to counter it either through the media coverage or by running a counter ad.
Demanding or hoping for censorship might seem like an easy solution, but it is a cop-out and probably counterproductive in the long run. The pro-life side will find some way to get its arguments out, and a failure to address them will eventually be seen as ceding the point.
Let the ad run. Let the debate exist. Freedom of expression demands no less.
No comments:
Post a Comment