The making of a criminal updated

Last month I wrote an article on this blog about George Orwell’s Newspeak and the way some busybodies in our society had resorted to distorting the true meaning of words to avoid the negative impact of the correct words. For example, using the words “help” or “encourage” when what they actually mean is “coerce” or “force.”

I noted in my article that, for Newspeak to be effective, Big Brother had to re-write the dictionary. As Orwell noted, if the word doesn’t exist, you can’t talk about it. If you remove the words “freedom” and “liberty”, for example, you can’t talk about them. And, it wouldn’t be long before the very concept of freedom was lost.

And, it would be difficult to discuss a revolution, since that word would likely be erased from the dictionary as well, pertaining, as it so often does, to liberty.

I opined in that article that rewriting the dictionary would be an impossible task in this electronic age. I hope I’m right.

Today, I had planned to write on Bob Gee’s pending criminal charges under a law recently implemented by the provincial government of Nova Scotia and the defense he intends to use in court. My original post on Gee’s problems was published here back in July.

As I read the newspaper article,I got to thinking about how it might look if the government could simply censor words pertaining to commodities or issues that met with their displeasure. So I wrote the first four paragraphs censoring a single word and its derivatives. Orwell was right. Without the words, meaningful communication is damn near impossible.

KENTVILLE — The lawyer for Kentville (Censored) Bob Gee will argue that a provincial law requiring his client to cover all products in his store violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Adam Church said Wednesday displaying (Censored) is "a form of advertising and is therefore expression, which our Constitution protects."

If a judge agrees, there would be another hearing, at which the provincial government would have to "demonstrably justify that the law is a reasonable limitation on the right to freedom of speech," Mr. Church said.

Mr. Gee is charged under the (Censored) Access Act, which prohibits displaying (Censored) and (Censored) products with their labels visible. He is also charged with having too much (Censored) display space in his shop, Mader’s (Censored) Store.

Now, for anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis, the censored word will be readily discernible. Most others will be scratching their heads, wondering what the hell we’re talking about.

I find the effect quite chilling. Simply censoring the word restricts discussion. How could you have any sort of meaningful debate (like the one the anti-smoker brigade claims is over) if you couldn’t use the word?

The anti-smoker crowd could easily twist and distort the meaning of the piece using euphemisms. For example, “The lawyer for Kentville merchant of death Bob Gee will argue that a provincial law requiring his client to cover all products in his store violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Adam Church said Wednesday displaying coffin nails is a form of advertising and is therefore expression, which our Constitution protects."

It would be much easier to turn people against a “merchant of death” than a simple tobacconist trying to make a living; there would be much less sympathy for a man peddling “cancer sticks or coffin nails”, than a businessman displaying his product line.

Of course, there’s no real need for the anti-smoker cultists to go to such extremes. They and their backers in the pharmaceutical industry have the partisan press in their pocket. With the media withholding information from the public, there can be no debate. With only one side of the story being told in the press, the words “debate and discussion” could also be stricken from the dictionary.

At any rate, Bob Gee is a tobacconist who operates Mader’s Tobacco Store down in Kentville, Nova Scotia.

Bob has been charged under the NS Tobacco Access Act for failing to cover up his cigarette and other tobacco related displays. The government wants to protect minors from the remote possibility than one might sneak into his store and, before Bob gets a chance to throw his underage ass out, catch a glimpse of his line of fine tobaccos and instantly become addicted.

Rob Cunningham, policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society, says bans on retail displays are essential to protect children and reduce smoking rates in general. Uh-huh.

Bob and his lawyer will appear in court on January 16 for a hearing. If the judge decides he has a legitimate challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there will be a second hearing and Bob will be allowed to argue his case.

Until then, Bob is determined to continue displaying, and selling, his wares. I wish him the best of luck.