Censors of the world unite -- and wreck the Internet
by George Jonas
National Post
January 27, 2010
The Jan. 24 editorial in China's People's Daily is a censor's lament, a commissar's cri du coeur. It's a pained rejection of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's criticism of Beijing's interference with the Internet. China's editorial writers sound not only wounded but puzzled. Who, us, interfere? Number one, we don't. Number two, why pick on us? Everybody does.
Yeah, well, better take another look at this, fellas, because the second assertion somewhat reduces the value of the first. But never mind. What I want to know is where did I read this before?
Yogi Berra would call it "deja vu all over again." The editorial in my mailbox, courtesy of Neil Hrab, looks eerily familiar. "Most countries exert some sort of control over information," it says. Hmm. Not much of an argument to justify censorship, but I remember reading it recently somewhere else.
"As is widely recognized, freedom is always relative..." says the People's Daily. Well, yes; most municipalities prefer people to stop at red lights. While all freedoms are relative, some freedoms are more relative than others. Beijing's experts on the relativity of freedom can probably knock Einstein into a cocked hat.
"Freedom is always relative" rings another bell, though. Let's see. Of course! "Because no right is absolute." It's a Canadian source.
Look at the opening statement to the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies, delivered in the summer of 2009 by Chief Commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. It fits perfectly. How can freedom be anything but relative, as the People's Daily asserts, when no right is absolute, as the Chief Commissioner of Canada's Human Rights confirms.
Deja vu solved. If Ottawa is here, can Beijing be far behind? Censors of the world, unite. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the People's Daily are in synch.
"Most countries exert some sort of control over information ..." offers China's official organ, and "many ... nations have enacted laws to limit forms of extreme hateful expression ... " Canada's official commissioner confirms. "No responsible country takes a laissez-faire attitude towards the use of the Internet ..." proposes China, and Ms. Lynch seconds the motion: "I launched a comprehensive policy review of how to prevent the harm caused by hate messages on the Internet..."
"Debate" is welcome, in theory, but critics aren't. For sensitive commissars a fair debate on freedom of expression is a debate their opponents concede at the outset. The keyword, in Ottawa no less than in Beijing, is "respect."
"It is an operational norm [for foreign businesses]," offers the Chinese editorial, "to respect and comply with laws and regulations as well as public interests and the cultural tradition of the host country." Ms. Lynch's formulation is similar. "Ensure that informed discussion takes place," she instructs her troops, "and the manner in which it takes place is respectful of our human rights system."
But excuse me, Ma'am -- isn't this the very thing we're debating? Is our "human rights system" worthy of respect? Aren't we, in fact, suppressing human rights for policy? As for communist China's cultural traditions, which ones should the Internet respect? The Red Guards? Mao's swim in the Yangtze river? The Gang of Four?
Look at the editorial's objection to China's critics and Ms. Lynch's complaint about the CHRCs critics side by side. Can you tell which is which?
(1) "It is not acceptable for someone to assume for themselves the high moral ground..."
(2) "When rights must be balanced, so too debate about these rights should be balanced, but it is not."
Hint: Sentence (2) makes even less sense in Chinese.
Western concepts of freedom genuinely puzzle the rulers of the Forbidden City. Why would sensible censorship measures cause commercial entrepreneurs like Google to contemplate, as they did at one point, picking up their marbles and going home? Since Beijing's commissars, like most people, judge others by their own lights, they look for hidden U.S. agendas behind Google's fleeting flirtation with the idea of closing shop in China.
Luckily, not all Yanks are mavericks, with freedom on the brain. People's Daily quotes with approval Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer saying last week that his company must comply with the laws and customs of any country where it does business. Atta boy, Steve. Now there's a good capitalist. Have some kibble.
Cogito, ergo sum: I think, therefore I am, says the philosopher. I think, therefore I intervene, says the social engineer. I think, therefore I want a penny for my thoughts, says the businessman. I think, therefore you had better stop thinking, says the commissar.
It takes philosophers and businessmen to create something like the Internet; it takes social engineers and commissars to wreck it. They're trying, too, from Ottawa to Beijing. Sensible chaps often yield to them. Only feral bloggers, muckrakers, limelight-hogs, centre-stage addicts, one-man content providers and similar unicorns stand in the way. Without hyperactive, self-promoting mavericks, the Internet, the printed page, every damn thing would go down the commissars' drain. We'd be in the outer darkness, gnashing our teeth (or dentures, as the case may be.)
Three cheers for untamable souls.