PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY JANUARY 26, 1983, WHITBY FREE-PRESS whtby Voice of the County Town Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher . Managing Editor The only Whitby newspaper independently owned and operated by Whitby residents for Whitby residents. blished every Wednesday by M.B.M. Publishing and Photography Inc. Phone 668-fil Il The Free Press Building, 131 Brock Street North, P.O. Box 206, Whitby, Ont. LESLIE BUTLER Community Editor ELIZABETH NOZDRYN Advertising Manager Second Class Mail Registration No. 5351 Censorship monster emerges again in new guise All the clatter about pay television ushering In an era of "porn proliferation" has dulled at least some thinking people's senses to what is the real issue In the current controversy. It Is, simply put, censorshlp. An age-old mon- ster that rears its head from time to time to remind us that freedom of expression is not an lnallenable right. The new medium, pay television, has caused this monster to roar rather loudly this time, with one group in society claiming their right to dignity and equality is being stepped on, while the other group shouts that their freedom to decide what Is good for them is being denied. Both sides have powerful positions. If they did not, the issue of censorship would have gone out with Aristotle (who did, by the way, fight for free- dom of expression in literature when the Greeks wanted to ban Oedipus Rex because it contained scenes of murder and incest). The National Women's Coalition says "hard core" pornography degrades women, fosters atti- tudes of discrimination toward women and will lead to violent acts being committed against women in "real life". They go on to say pornography should be cen- sored because it is not acceptable within our "community standard" of morality. They claim to represent this standard of morality. For most opponents of the Playboy series which will be aired by First Choice pay television, the moment of truth comes when violence enters the picture. But if we, as a society with a community stan- dard of morality, truly abhor violence, where were we when network television and commercial films began showing murder and mutilation in the prime-time slots? If we truly believe that seeing violent acts, be they sexual or otherwise, will lead to committing violent acts, why haven't we lowered the boom on the television and film industry before now? The answer, perhaps, is that we believe we have the legal machinery in place to deal with acts of violence in society. And this is enough. We have laws against murder, but no laws against portraying murder in books, films or tele- vision. We have laws against sexual violence, and now one group wants to make laws against portraying sexual violence in books, films and television. We are a strange animal, indeed, if we accept murder and mutilation on our airwaves, but seek to snuff outsex. Another argument used by the opponents of the Playboy series is that "soft porn" may be alright, but It will lead to a desire for more. The term used to describe this increasing desire is "sexcala- tion". Even if this were an established fact (which it is not), the same may be said for those who taste the power of censorship. If one lobby group success- fully muzzles pay television, what is to stop any group from muzzling free speech? Margaret Lawrence, an internationally famous Canadian author, had one of her books banned from the school system right here in Ontarlo. What's next? The simple fact is, pay television is a matter of choice. Turn the set off If you don't like what's on it. Don't subscribe to it (Pay TV). Be your own "censor control board". The.vocal minority has no place invading the privacy of your home. Get a lock for your television (they do exist) If you are concerned about children turning the set on when adult entertainment is being shown late at night. Or better still, stay home and make sure your children are in bed where they belong. The dangers of censorship are far more fright- ening than so called "pornography". If a person's right to choose is being pitted against the right of one group in society to dictate morality, give us freedom of choice. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Sir: Now that the dust has settled a bit, we of the NDP in this region wish to re- gister our complete support and admira- tion for the recent statement issued by the Canadian Catholic Confer- ence of Bishops in which they called for public debate on the issue of the immorality of unem- ployment induced by the actions of government or busi- ness. What the bishops said is not what many of our politi- cal leaders or busi- ness leaders and many other well to do, securely em- ployed people want to hear, and they will react accor- dingly and predict- ably. One fool of a columnist who writes for a Toronto newspaper, even labelled the bishops as "Marx- ists". This type of reaction is shallow and unthinking sensationalism. It is surely more intelligent to ac- cept the bishops as dedicated Christ- ians who have the courage to chal- lenge the political and business esta- blishment just as the Christian chur- ch has been required to do many times throughout history in order to speak for the less fortunate people in society. The bishops de- mand that the right of people to have meaningful jobs is more important than maximization of profits or reduc- ing inflation. What, we ask, is the ultimate value of introducing a robot that takes away the jobs of ten people if those ten people must be supported by wel- fare? What is the value of causing thou- sands of people to be unemployed in order to reduce in- flation if fewer working people must support more and more unem- ployed? We maintain that ail people have the right to the dignity of employment and the fulfillment of being able to pro- vide for themselves and their families. Nothing is more important than this and this should be the top priority of our political and economic systems. Clearly this is not so at the present time. With 1.5 million people out of work in Canada and over 12 million people unemployed in the United States, it is clear that the pre- sent system, so greatly admired for so many years in North America, is obsolete. Changes are needed say the bishops. We agree. But people fear change. Risks will have to be taken be- cause if the present trend continues it will eventually get to all of us - even the wealthy and secure. The bishops did not counsel us to- wards communism as some frantic re- actionary types would have us believe. They did ask us to become more concerned about: the rights of work- ers; the participa- tion of the needy and oppressed as full members of our society; unemploy- ment as the most critical issue of the day; the burden of wage controls on lower income families; cut-backs in social programs; a new role for labour unions in the development of in- dustrial strategy and the restoration of collective bar- gaining rights where they have been suspended. If maximization of profits demands an automated and a dehumanized work- place in the future then the choice is clear. People must come f irst. What the bishops said needed to be said, but unless each of us who agrees with them takes up his or her responsibility and pushes the call fur- ther into concrete action, the state- ment of the bishops will receive polite but reserved atten- tion and be allowed to fade away. The bishops have been widely criti- cized. Perhaps the greater criticisrn should be aimed at others who have kept silent while 13 per cent of Canada's work for- ce is unemployed. We thank the bish- ops for their initia- tive and admire them for their cour- age. Geoff Rison, President, Ontario Riding, NDP Association.