Censorship

I was at work last week on a quite different blog for the Ryerson CFE when a jury of Gerald Stanley’s peers (or is it settler clones?), seven women and five men none of whom were “visibly Indigenous,” acquitted Stanley of the murder of Colten Boushie of the Red Pheasant First Nation in August of 2016.

Toronto Star / January 26 – Writing in the Toronto Star, Sheldon Levy, past-president of Ryerson University, describes the university president’s challenge in defending freedom of expression on campus and why it is essential for universities and beyond. “On many occasions, I gave my administrator’s green light to events featuring speakers whose ideas I personally loathed,” Levy writes. “And I did so because freedom of speech is a core defining value for any free society. Democracy cannot function without it.”

I think I am living in the proverbial “interesting times.”

The Toronto Public Library (TPL) Board kicked-off 2018 by bringing in a new policy on community and event space rental.  While the new policy is meant to address discrimination and promote inclusion, it is infinitely more likely to quash debates on controversial topics, exclude minority voices and in doing so, distort the mission of the library to promote the free exchange of ideas. 

Is it ever appropriate to crack sex jokes at work?  I hope so - since I’ve been known to do it on occasion.  But a recent one-liner made by a Canadian parliamentarian has prompted me to interrogate my risque behaviour, and reflect on the line that divides harmless suggestive bantering from sleazy unwanted innuendos.  When it comes to erotic talk at the office, is one person’s discomfort another person’s delight?  If so, how to tell the difference?  And what should be the consequences when we get our signals crossed?