On December 13th Doug Riblet wrote: > This article appeared in today's Wisconsin State Journal, reprinted > from the New York Times. It is not about film exactly, but it deals > with issues of censorship in academia which many of us have had or > will have to deal with. (Reprinted without permission.) > __Canada closes doors to 'obscene' literature__ [ARTICLE OMITTED TO SAVE SPACE] > No commentary from me, except to note the delicious irony of that > assiduous customs official's name, [Corrinne M. Honey] which would make a fine nom de porn. > Doug Riblet I suspect the _NY Times_ article about the Duras problem here at Trent came about partly because the previous weekend the _Times_ had had an editorial on the Karla Homolka-Paul Teale homicide cases in which the Canadian courts had imposed a publication and media ban, which the U.S. media disregarded. It became quite an incident since Canadians near the border went across to get U.S. newspapers, which in some cases Customs and/or the police seized at the border. U.S. TV media that talked about the case were blacked out on Canadian cable -- we had a bit of a laugh as the screen snowed out. Border radio stations did broadcasts which naturally couldn't be stopped. Since there was Internet discussion of the case, the administration of McGill University decided to impose a ban on any Usenet or Internet groups discussing the case -- an action that was followed by many other Canadian universities, creating a censoring of Internet. While this is not directly related to film any more than the Duras incident was, it does remind one that Canada has a complex history of censorship and of obscenity cases that differs from the U.S. Canada did not have any enshrinement of freedoms of speech and the press, etc. until 1981 when the present Bill of Rights was enshrined in the Constitution. Even in that bill the right of "freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" is "subject to such reasonable limits imposed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Students of film interested in the issues of Censorship across the border might find a popular book _Censored! Only in Canada: The History of Film Censorship_ by Malcom Dean (Toronto: Virgo Press, 1981). U.S. scholars unfamiliar with Canadian law may be surprised to know that it suppressed any knowledge of John Grierson's ignominious dismissal from the National Film Board as Commissioner following a set of _in camera_ hearings by the Taschereau-Kellog commission in the 1940s. Under _The Official Secrets Act_ (which is still in force), all documents related to the hearing were sealed. When in the late 1970s a Ph.D. student in history at McGill who had been inadvertently using a copy of the report -- that was on the library shelves at Concordia University in Montreal -- to write a thesis on Grierson, the Office of the Privy Council reiterated on the first page of the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, the fact that the material was banned, placing considerable pressure on McGill to suppress the thesis. Eventually the thesis was published as a book by its author, Gary Evans. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book here and am unable to give a reference, though I am quite familiar with the whole matter since I acted as a special reader to advise the Faculty of Graduate Studies on the problems presented by the thesis. The restrictions undoubtedly did Grierson a major disservice and helped conceal a McCarthy-like moment of Canadian history conducted behind closed doors. I could expound at length on the general subject. Anyone who wants can write to me directly for more details. In closing, I will cite only one other aspect of Canadian activities in this area that should be of interest to U.S. film scholars and certainly reinforces that unease that a number of the respondents have expressed. Recently the Ontario Ministry of Education has set down minimal guidelines which all the universities in the Province must use in formulating a policy on Harassment and Discrimination. This policy, they are told, should cover all harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination or situations creating a negative environment or climate that is either overt, indirect, resulting from association or systemic. These regulations cover all the areas covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code Grounds: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin [including language, dialect or accent], citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age (18-65), marital status, family status, the receipt of public assistance, record of provincial offenses or pardoned federal offenses. In delineating what constitutes the creation of a negative environment, it is pointed out that this can be "one of a series of comments or conduct involving any one of the prohibited grounds" as long as it is of "a significant nature or degree" and has `the effect of `poisoning' the work or study environment." To be adversely effected by a negative environment someone need "not be a direct target." A series of specific examples given of harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination or the creation of a negative environment include: gestures, remarks, jokes, innuendo, display of offensive materials, offensive graffiti, signs, cartoons, remarks, exclusion or adverse treatment related to one or more of the prohibited grounds as well as more obvious actions such as threats, verbal or physical assault, taunting, imposition of academic penalties, hazing and stalking. The province further encourages the universities in formulating their policies "to broaden [the] grounds beyond" this minimum. While this legislation may be well-intentioned, the aspects that have to do with freedom of expression, communication and communication media cannot help but pose serious difficulties for those seriously involved in the teaching of film, art, literature, cultural studies, etc. Doug Riblet, in questioning the readiness of Canadian government agencies to intervene in ways that suppress speech and communication, raises a serious question, particularly in the context of a country that: banned the importation of Joyce's _Ulysses_ until 1952; censored _The Tin Drum_ as child pornography; kept Freud, Havelock, Kraft-Ebbing and other such texts under lock and key available only to advanced students -- graduate students with special permission; brought obscenity proceedings in the 1960s against _Playboy_ for publishing Arthur Knight's _History of Sex in the Cinema_; and convicted a professor of Cultural Studies at Trent and the organizer of an annual university-sponsored Film Festival for a violation of the censorship act for showing a film -- which was a feminist-oriented critique of advertising by Vancouver film maker, Al Rizutis. I suspect those who are uneasy about the incident described in the N.Y. Times article are wise and prudent, whatever the self-serving nature of U.S. establishment media going after Canada. I only bring these to the Screen community's attention, since it might provide a model for other political jurisdictions both in and out of Canada. Donald Theall