Dear editor,
I’m writing in response to the letter from Willem Semmelink in the March 7 Record, who argues for censoring letters from other readers that espouse climate change denial (Reader likens letters of ‘climate denialism’ to racist posts; suggests censorship). While I can understand him taking exception to the denial of the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of anthropomorphic climate change and global warming, I oppose the idea of censoring such letters.
First, there’s no evidence that censorship is effective at stifling dissenting viewpoints, but rather drives them underground, where they become more difficult to challenge on any reasonable grounds. Such appears to be the case with the anti-vax position, which, like climate change denial, is also anti-science. Those opposed to MMR vaccination took their opinion into the shadows of the internet where their misguided ideas spread unchecked because it took too long to stop the distribution of their fake news. Fear, it seems, acts like an accelerant that makes inflammatory nonsense spread more quickly.
Second, the censorship of dissenting opinion is a black mark upon an open society where the free exchange of ideas plays a key role in the development of civil discourse that potentially leads to greater understanding. It is a worrisome and ironic trend that free speech is being suppressed in post-secondary institutions in Canada by youth who believe that tolerance of dissent is no longer a desirable feature of expanded awareness and the path to wisdom. Let’s not perpetuate such a misguided effort in the pages of our local newspaper.
Finally, I would ask Mr. Semmelink how he might feel if the shoe was on the other foot and the dominant view supported denialism: would he still be so keen to censor opposing opinions?
M. M. Pratt,
Comox
