Folly of censoring

After reading “Human rights advocacy costs Canadian a shot at Miss World” ( BP, Nov 29), I realised I would most likely have never heard of Anastasia Lin nor read her opinions if the Chinese government had not tried to silence her.

I also would have never heard of Charlie Hebdo magazine nor seen the offensive cartoons it published if terrorists had not tried to force their views on what is and what is not allowed to be published.

Attempts to censor and silence individuals who have differing views often produce unintended consequences. The attempts to silence Nelson Mandela by the apartheid government of South Africa helped turned him into a national and international hero.

Likewise, Aung San Suu Kyi’s message was strengthened by being censored by an unelected military dictatorship, and part of the reason her views were almost universally accepted worldwide by people who would have been hard pressed to identify where Myanmar was located on a map was due to the attempts to censor and punish her for exercising her right of freedom of non-violent speech.

People around the world tend to side with an individual being oppressed rather than those doing the oppressing. History is not kind to countries, institutions and individuals which oppose freedom of speech.

The United Nation’s Declaration of Universal Rights says “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. There are no clauses listing exceptions.

SCOTT A HIPSHER

Phitsanulok