SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP

REPORTS about Indigo boss Heather Reisman's decision to forbid her Chapters stores to sell Hitler's book Mein Kampf contained an intriguing comment from the national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "This," Keith Landry said of Ms. Reisman's edict, "is an act of a responsible bookseller who's exercising her right and freedom to sell any book that she desires."

Mr. Landry's sentiments were shared, in part, by many media commentators who, while generally regretting Ms. Reisman's decision to remove Hitler's historic work from her stores' shelves, nevertheless noted it was her right in a free society to stock whatever merchandise she desired. This is capitalism, after all, and the market would let her know what it thinks of her decision.

It is difficult to argue with this point of view. As much as one may be disappointed by yet another instance of self-censorship by a major Canadian corporation, one must concede it is and should be an entirely private (or, in this case, corporate) decision. That said, however, it is clear that the general rush to defend a business operator's right to conduct his or her affairs in a free market is, in fact, a highly selective exercise. In other, less politically correct areas, only a smattering of support is heard for an entrepreneur's right to conduct business according to the dictates of his own conscience. For evidence, look no further than to the case of Toronto printer Scott Brockie, who has fallen victim to Ontario human rights laws because he refused to print material for a homosexual -rights group.

To return to Ms. Reisman for a moment, she argues in a National Post piece she is not censoring Mein Kampf, because the book is still available elsewhere. Anyway, only governments can censor, she points out. What is more, there are some two million titles in print, she explains, and her company is constantly making "decisions about what to carry and what not to carry." This is not censorship, she suggests, but simply standard operating procedure. And, anyway, Mein Kampf is "hate propaganda."

What she is essentially arguing is that she has the right to discriminate against some books and the right to discriminate in favour of others. It is significant that not a single media commentator, politician or social activist took issue with her on this point. They may have said her decision was foolish, cowardly or short-sighted, but it was, nevertheless, hers to make.

So, let us now consider the case of Mr. Brockie. It was in April 1996 that he refused to print letterhead for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. He explained that, as a Christian, he considered homosexuality to be immoral, and did not want to do anything to promote the practice. Four years later, an Ontario Human Rights Commission board of inquiry found him guilty of breaching provincial anti-discrimination law and fined him $5,000. Mr. Brockie's appeal of that ruling was finally heard in the courts in early December.

But viewed in the context of the support for Ms. Reisman's right to make her own business decisions--indeed, of her right to discriminate--the lack of protest over Mr. Brockie's legal problems seems hypocritical and unjust.

Why? Simple fairness. If there is agreement that Ms. Reisman has the right to make controversial, conscience-based choices about the business she operates, then so should there be for Mr. Brockie. Furthermore, if everyone supports Ms. Reisman's right not to be forced to sell a product she feels is offensive ("hate propaganda"), then, on the same grounds, they should also support Mr. Brockie's right to refuse to do work he considers offensive ("immoral").

And just as Ms. Reisman can argue successfully that her decision does not deprive shoppers of their right to read Hitler's book (because other stores continue to sell it), then so too should Mr. Brockie be able to maintain that his decision to turn away the homosexual group did not prevent it from printing its letterhead (because other printers would surely do the work).

One does not have to agree with the prejudices of either Ms. Reisman or Mr. Brockie to appreciate that both of them attempted to exercise what is supposed to be a fundamental right in a free economy. However, the fact that only Mr. Brockie ran afoul of the law in exercising this right is disturbing. Indeed, it seems clear on the facts that the treatment Mr. Brockie has endured in Ontario is tantamount to persecution.  Nevertheless, this sort of double standard has come to be the norm in a country that is increasingly disinterested in individual rights and liberty.

Instead, it is obsessed with special rights for selected groups, and homosexuals are clearly one such group. Hence, Mr. Brockie's individual rights are thwarted in order to advance gay rights. Ms. Reisman, on the other hand, suffers no adverse consequences for her discriminatory behaviour, because Nazis do not receive protection.

Mr. Brockie may yet enjoy the justice he deserves by persuading the courts that the human rights commission ruling was wrong, but absent any movement to amend human rights laws in this country, more prosecutions against other social conservatives are inevitable. Thus are our freedoms diminished.  And thus is our country ever closer to ruin.