‘A viable safeguard’

Dear Editor:

RE: Just like Hitler? (Jan. 28).

Wayne Baker wrote of the generations that fought and died to protect our rights, such as the right of free speech and expression as prescribed in Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights regarding freedom of speech and expression.

He advocates that the Advertiser is employing censorship of letters that express hate, misinformation, conspiracy theories, etc. and that this action denigrates the sacrifices made by generations past.

He then advises that we read our history and comes to the conclusion that this is the type of action that leaders such as Hitler, Mao and others adopted to control the population. Mr. Baker states that the last time he checked, we have freedom of speech enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

I think Mr. Baker might want to take a closer look at the article of the Bill of Rights referencing Freedom of Speech and Expression.

It states loosely that we are entitled to a “reasonable” right of freedom when it comes to speech and expression and goes on to say that this right is not “absolute” and may be subject to governmental restrictions regarding among others, “hate speech, obscenity and defamation.”

We only need to look to the south in order to see what freedom of speech and expression led to in weeks past. Death and destruction.

I have worn the uniform of this country, as did my grandfather, and I don’t know of anyone that did so in order to allow comments such as those the paper has restricted. Restricting platforms for those types of expressions is a viable safeguard and helps to prevent such views to be justifiable. Similar to restricting Twitter and YouTube from those who would promulgate hate and dissension through public media.

The Advertiser is not “denigrating the sacrifices and memory of those who fought against such vehemence as what you are proposing”. The Advertiser is, in fact, honouring that which they fought for: the right for reasonable freedom of speech and expression.

Terry Filce,
Belwood