|
2000-
- Sex
and Sexualities. February 2000 issue of
this feminist
newspaper produced by the Womyn's Publication Netwerk at the
University of Victoria. The cover photograph depicted
a woman and a young girl in the Nevada desert; the woman was
wearing cowboy boots and a leather bustier, and the girl was
nude, wearing only sneakers. Island
Publishers, the publisher
of the newspaper, felt that it violated Canada's
child pornography
laws and would only print it if the word "censored" covered
the girl's body; no other publishers would print
the magazine,
so the edited issue was printed. [Editors
Accuse Printers of Censorship, Globe and Mail, 3
February 2000,
p. A3]
- One
Dad Two Dads Brown Dads Blue Dads by Johnny
Valentine, Asha's
Mums by Rosamund Elwin and Michel Paulse, and
Belinda's
Bouquet by Leslea Newman and Michael Willhoite.
Continuing
the case that began in 1997 (see 1990-1999 section
for more
information on the beginnings of the case), the
Surrey School
Board appealed the ruling that their decision to
ban the books
was based on religious beliefs and from June 21-23, 2000 the
appeal hearing was held at the B.C. Court of
Appeal. The Board
argued that their decision was not influenced by
religion and
thus did not violate the School Act. On September 20, 2000,
the B.C. Court of Appeal, composed of justices
Kenneth Mackenzie,
William Esson, and Patricia Proudfoot overturned
the decision.
Justice Mackenzie stated that parents should be
consulted before
using "sensitive" materials in the
classroom; he also
stated that the books met the criteria for school libraries
and therefore could be used in the classroom. He
confirmed the
fact that schools must protect teachers and
students from discrimination:
"the highest morality includes
non-discrimination on grounds
of sexual orientation. The public schools must
positively espouse
that moral position and they cannot teach a morality that is
inconsistent with it." He said the decision
to use these
books should be up to the discretion and
professional judgement
of teachers and not the policy of a school board, but warned
that "a prudent teacher should consult with colleagues,
parents and the principal before using sensitive
materials."
Justice Mackenzie criticized the petitioners as
being "confrontational"
and with an "agenda". He stated that
public schools
must allow for diverse opinions, yet ensure the
protection of
all members from discrimination. He also stated that schools
must not allow indoctrination of a religious or
non-religious
ideology. Both the petitioners and the Board
claimed victory.
The dispute over the books continued in June 2001
when the group
of parents, teachers and students opposing the Surrey School
Board's decision to ban the use of the books in
the classroom
filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada.
The petitioners
argued that the book ban violated the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Joe Arvay, the lawyer representing the
petitioners,
said that "Section 15 of the Charter bars the
state from
refusing to recognize and affirm families on the
basis of the
sexual orientation of parents…Properly
understood the right
of religious freedom does not include the right to
dictate public
school curriculum."
The Supreme Court of Canada decided in October 2001 that it
would hear the appeal and on June 12, 2002 the case
was heard.
In their petition, Avray argued that public school
boards have
a duty to counter potential sexual harassment of
children with
homosexual parents by introducing gay-positive messages into
the classroom at an early age. He said,
"invisibility threatens
a child's self-esteem and reduces the opportunities
for others
to learn and practice tolerance." John Dives,
lawyer for
the Surrey School Board countered that trustees
must be granted
the right to determine that kindergarten and Grade 1 is too
young to introduce students to homosexuality and
gay parenting.
Dives also argued that the School Board is not contravening
the free-expression rights of teachers by telling them they
can't bring gay-positive messages into the classroom:
"teachers
of kindergarten and Grade 1 children do not have
the right to
expression under the charter for the purposes of
adding to the
curriculum in a way that's not approved by the board."
The Surrey School Board was supported by the Vancouver Roman
Catholic archdiocese and the Evangelical Fellowship
of Canada.
On December 21, 2002 the Supreme Court presented its ruling
that the ban on books about gay and lesbian parents
has no place
in a public school system that claims to promote
diversity and
tolerance. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in the 7-2
ruling that "parental views, however important, cannot
override the imperative placed upon the British
Columbia public
schools to mirror diversity of the community and
teach tolerance
and understanding of difference." Throughout
the 35-page
ruling, the Chief Justice repeatedly stressed the importance
for a secular school board to avoid caving in to
pressure from
religious parents to the point of excluding the
values of other
members of the community. However, the judgement
returned the
decision of whether to approve the books back to the School
Board and Mary Polak, chair of the Board, said
that she could
not predict what decision the board might make
next time.
On June 12, 2003 the school board voted 5-2 again to ban the
three contentious books from use the classroom.
The vote came
after six years of controversy and over $1 million in legal
costs for the school board. In the weeks leading
up the vote,
the board held a series of public meetings on the issue and
nearly all those who spoke opposed permitting the
books in Surrey
schools. In making their decision, the board went through a
long list of criteria to evaluate the books, and reasons for
exclusion included poor grammar, inappropriate
content, scope
and depth. James Chamberlain, the teacher who
launched the long
campaign to have the books included said that, "No book
in Surrey would pass the process they have gone
through tonight.
I think the board has been dreaming up criteria for
six years."
A few days later Chamberlain announced that he would not be
part of any future legal action saying that it was just too
expensive to continue. Nonetheless, the case is not over as
Port Coquitlam teacher Murray Warren asked lawyer Joe Arvay
to explore legal avenues of "holding this
board accountable
to the Supreme Court of Canada."
On June 26, 2003 the Surrey School Board announced that the
District Standing Advisory Committee for Learning Resources
had recommended that two titles featuring same-sex
parents be
included as recommended resources for Surrey classrooms. The
books, Who's in a Family by Robert Skutch
and A Family
Alphabet Book by Bobbie Combs were found to
meet the curriculum
learning outcome to "identify a variety of
family groupings."
[Book Banning in Surrey-What
Happened? Egale.
Online. Available : www.egale.ca/features/surrey.htm.
2 October 2000; Both
Sides Claim Victory
in Same-Sex Book Case. Vancouver Sun 21 September
2000, p. A1;
Top Court Asked for Ruling on School Books, Vancouver Sun 13
June 2001, p. B1; Book Ban Goes to Top Court, Vancouver Sun
12 June 2002; Ban on Books Unreasonable Court
Rules, National
Post 21 December 2002, p. A8; Surrey Board Bans 3 Gay Books
from Schools - Again, The Province 13 June 2003;
Teacher will
Continue Fight with Surrey School Board over Banned
Books, Coquitlam
Now 18 June 2003, p. 9]
- "The
Invisible Girl" by Gillian Chan. A short story in the
book Glory Days and Other Stories. In November 2000,
during the sexual assault trial of Langley teacher
Roger Mercier,
witnesses complained about this story that he had
assigned to
his grade five and six students. The story in question
is about the attempted rape of a teen girl while on
a date.
As a result, police seized the school library's
copy as evidence;
the principal then recommended to the School Board
superintendent
that all copies should be removed in the Langley
school system.
All of the books were withdrawn from Langley elementary and
secondary school libraries. [Langley
Pulls "Inappropriate" Book, The Vancouver Sun 21
November 2000,
B7]
- In January
2001, the Supreme Court of Canada returned its ruling in the
John Robin Sharpe case which essentially upheld the
ban on child
pornography in Canada. Sharpe was charged with
possessing child
pornography after police seized several books, manuscripts,
stories and photographs from his Surrey, B.C. home in 1996.
He had successfully challenged the constitutionality of the
possession ban in the lower courts. He argued that
the Criminal
Code's definition of what constituted child pornography was
too broad and that its prohibition of the mere possession of
sexually explicit works of fiction about children
violated his
Charter guarantees of freedom of thought and
expression.
In the ruling, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin acknowledged
that the ban on possessing child pornography did
limit freedom
of expression, but that the harm it caused was outweighed in
almost every circumstance by the need to protect
children from
real or possible sexual exploitation. However,
McLachlin warned
against the indiscriminate banning of other fictional works
involving children by saying, that freedom of
expression "makes
possible our liberty, our creativity and our
democracy. It does
this by protecting not only `good' and popular
expression, but
also unpopular or even offensive expression."
[Child
Pornography Decision by the Supreme Court was Fair and Just,
Sault Star 29 January 2001, p. A4]
- The
Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur
Butz. In March
of 2001, patron Brad Saltzberg requested that the
Capilano branch
of the North Vancouver District Public Library remove their
copy of this book because he felt that it could cause hatred
towards Jewish people. There had been
previous requests
for the library to reconsider having this book in
their collection.
When the Manager of Collections and Services denied
the request,
Saltzberg asked to appeal the decision at the next
library board
meeting. The library board voted to retain the book
in the collection.
[NVD Rejects Book Ban Bid, North
Shore News 11 March 2001, p. 1,9]
- In March
2001 the Vancouver Island Regional Library adopted
an acceptable
use policy for its public access terminals. Before
having access
to the internet, all users must agree to the policy
which states
that viewing pornography or other suggestive
material is unacceptable.
Patrons found violating the policy will have their internet
use privileges suspended for one week. [Library
Board Adopts its Porn Policy, Cowichan Pictoral 11
April 2001;
Policy Keeps Porn Out, Ladysmith-Chemainus
Chronicle 10 April
2001]
- In April
2001 controversy erupted over 4 murals in the B.C.
Legislature
building which were seen by First Nations groups to
depict Indians
in roles that were subservient to white people.
Most offensive
to the protesters was one of four scenes depicting
topless naked
women either hauling logs to build Fort Victoria in 1843 or
carrying baskets of fresh fish while blue-eyed European men
in uniform look on. The cause to remove the murals
was led by
Ed John, a senior aboriginal leader and Minister
for Children
and Families in the NDP government. An advisory
panel was created
to determine the fate of the murals and they
advised that the
murals be removed (at an estimated cost of
$280,000). A final
decision was delayed when a provincial election was
announced.
The new Liberal government had not indicated that
it will take
any action in this case. [Culture Clash:
The Mural Controversy, Vancouver Sun 20 April 2001,
p. A7]
- Mein
Kampf by Adolf Hitler. In November 2001,
Heather Reisman,
CEO of Indigo Books and Music Inc. ordered the
removal Mein
Kampf from her 200 or so Chapters and Indigo
outlets across
Canada. Reisman defended her decision saying
"We believe
it's hate literature and we don't carry hate
literature in the
store." [Bookseller Defends
Ban on Mein
Kampf, Vancouver Sun 30 November 2001, p.
A1]
-
Children of the Matrix: How an Interdimensional Race has
Controlled the World for Years by David Icke. In September 2002,
according to the Kamloops Daily News, Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman
wrote to the director of libraries for the Thompson-Nicola Regional District
requesting that they remove copies of the book from their library
system because he alleges that it libels him.
[The
Daily News, Kamloops 4 September 2002, p. A5; The Daily News,
Kamloops 6 September 2002, p. A4]
[Mr. Warman notes
that there are divergent views on what constitutes censorship. He has
objected to the characterization of his complaint as censorship. In
his view, being able to protect one's reputation through a libel
claim is a fundamental part of freedom of expression.]
|
s |
|
|
