FREEDOM OF SPEECH GOES UP IN SMOKE

There are only a few truly great movies about college. One of these is
Animal House, the 1978 frat-party classic that provides a shining
example of National Lampoon before they started sucking.

Recently, however, a viewing of an edited-for-television version of
the movie gave me a somewhat unpleasant surprise. While it appeared
mostly uncut, one particularly memorable scene--the one where a
college professor smokes a "marijuana cigarette" with some of his
students--hadn't made it.

It was difficult to see why that particular scene was more worthy of
editing than much of the film's other questionable content. But it's
understandable why some consider unambiguous drug content unfit for
cable consumption, arguing that a safer and more controlled
educational environment should be ensured for a youth's first exposure
to the questions associated with illegal substance use.

Apparently, the good people of Wawota, Saskatchewan aren't among those
who share this sentiment. Recently, Kieran King, a 15-year-old honour
student and one of the town's 616 residents, experienced this position
firsthand when he made the mistake of bringing up our country's
cannabis conundrum in the school lunchroom.

By all accounts, King's offence was nothing more serious than sharing
some statistics on the drug which he found on the Internet, as well as
his opinion that marijuana should be legalized in Canada. This excess
of information apparently offended a fellow student, prompting a
complaint to the school's principal and a subsequent call to King's
mother during which the student claims he was accused of soliciting
drugs.

A walkout in order to protest this unjust treatment was organized by
King, his peers, and several members of the Saskatchewan Marijuana
Party; this was met with a school lockdown.

When King and his brother remained outside, they were suspended--not,
allegedly, for voicing their opinions, but for failing to follow
school rules. While the legal justifications for the school's actions
are questionable at best, it's their softer, societal implications
that should pose more concern.

Don Rempel, the school division's acting director, went above and
beyond discussing the lockdown during his public statement. He passed
judgment on the entire concept of Canadian public education, arguing
that "public schools are not public places =85 where students can
gather and talk about any issue that they wish."

This is bound to be somewhat surprising news to the many teachers and
other school employees who have been giving up their nights and
weekends thinking that they were serving that exact purpose: to
provide a safe forum where students can learn from both educators and
from their peers in a relatively risk-free atmosphere and arm
themselves with that information when it comes to making real-world
choices.

With his comments, Rempel has bluntly opposed the validity of this
raison d'etre, and perhaps this opposition should serve as pause for
reflection. After all, a lot of lip service is paid in this country
that it's a place of freedom.

But in our rush to defend it, we sometimes lose sight of what this
actually means. We are so used to thinking of it as simply "good" that
we lose sight of its intrinsic value--which, simply put, is nothing.

The liberty to speak freely doesn't really, in itself, provide society
with any benefit. It's not the magic stuff that good societies are
made of or something that we keep around as insurance in case we
someday need to speak out against something bad. Having it around to
use someday, just in case, doesn't produce better citizens or a better
country.

It's not the right itself, but its product--discourse--that generates
the positive societal change that has come to be associated with
countries that are seen as "free." The dialogue of the many is
supposed to produce the best solution for all--or at least enlighten
everyone a little in the process. And the first place that that
dialogue should be protected and fostered is in the classroom.

The country's debate over marijuana legalization is not the issue at
stake here, nor is the drug itself. Mr King denies that he has ever
even seen marijuana, and whether or not he has used it is beside the
point.

It wasn't any action on his behalf that had the power to produce such
repercussions, even though it was said in the attempt to open an
honest, frank, and politically aware discussion with fellow classmates.

These efforts are the embodiment of the often professed Canadian
ideals of awareness and tolerance. Saskatchewan as a province, and
Canada as a country, should be proud of producing such a student, and
ashamed of silencing him.