Censorship of immigration debate in Canada

Very Canadian.  Censorship as a means of expressing disapproval is childish -- like sticking your fingers in your ears.  One would have hoped that the Canadian parliament was more mature than that

The right for MPs to say and discuss almost anything they want is one of the central privileges of Parliament, but a couple of divisive debates over the past week tested the thresholds of dialogue in the House of Commons.

In one case, two spokespeople from the Canadian Immigration Forum were barred from speaking at the Commons immigration committee Wednesday because content on their website was deemed offensive -- including an interview with Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm.

Madi Lussier, one of the two witnesses from the Canadian Immigration Forum not permitted to speak to the Commons committee, wiped away tears as she expressed her frustrations. The group's website is mostly an aggregator of articles on different issues touching on immigration, but divided into provocative sections with names such as "Chinafication" and "Arabization."

She has advocated a moratorium on immigration for 50 years, and warned that "European" values might be at risk of disappearing in Canada.

NDP MP Jinny Sims was the first to argue against the group appearing. She said there are certain lines that cannot be crossed when allowing groups to testify at committee hearings.

"Well, I think (the website) definitely reflects the views of a white supremacist," Sims said.

But Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, says it's disappointing that the committee did not allow the Canadian Immigration Forum to appear.

"Every point of view -- however ugly and obnoxious most Canadians might find it -- should be allowed to be aired in hearings before our parliamentarians," said Schafer.

SOURCE