nouspique.com

This is a follow-up to Monday’s post which asks questions about the legitimacy of the Olympics.  One of the concerns I raised there was censorship, freedom of expression, and the right of Canadian citizens to voice dissenting views regarding the Olympics.  I had not yet read an article in the L.A. Times which reports the experience of Christopher Shaw, professor of ophthalmology at UBC, Vancouver resident, and author of Five Ring Circus:  Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games.  The article reports that Shaw, his girlfriend, and his ex wife (whom he divorced fifteen years ago) were approached by plainclothes police officers who questioned them about Shaw’s views and intentions.  This activity is justified as legitimate risk assessment and, by implication, entirely compatible with the workings of a free and democratic society.

Nevermind the fact that Shaw’s speech is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Nevermind that police questioning is intimidating and introduces a chilling effect upon future legitimate speech.  Nevermind that a heavy-handed approach produces less, not more, security by heightening the tension between opposing groups and widening the gulf between them.  Nevermind that it silences the few voices calling for accountability at a time when money is gushing like Niagara.

If the concern is the public face we present to the international community, then don’t suppress dissent.  In Canada, one of the chief sources of pride used to be the way in which we honoured diversity, whether that diversity came from ethnicity, ability, culture, history or ideas.  If Canadians want to distinguish themselves from the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the best way would be to present honest images of civil dissent.  Instead, something less than civil is leaking out and ends up being documented in the press of other countries.

Related posts:

1. Rally to Demand Inquiry into Actions Concerning G20