Mark cannot use the internet, so I am posting this on his behalf.
Mark was charged with “corrupting morals” under section 163 (1) (a) of the criminal code, for being the first in the world to publish a report on the gruesome murder of Chinese student Jun Lin, by alleged cannibal Luka Magnotta, also known as the 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick video.
The charge represents the most severe violation of the most fundamental human right in modern history and left un challenged, will have detrimental consequences on freedom of expression not only in Canada, but in all common law countries.
Because freedom of expression is essential to a free society, Mark and his legal team may try to challenge the law on the constitutional level, so that this dangerously broadly defined section can no longer be used as a tool of oppression against journalists, reporters, bloggers or anyone else who exercises his freedom of speech without causing any harm or loss.
Freedom of Expression vs Police State Censorship
The Best Gore Trial is a battle between freedom of expression and tyrannical censorship. Whoever wins, that is what you are going to get more of in the future. If freedom of expression wins, journalists, reporters, bloggers, artists (Remy Couture anyone?) and anyone else who broadcasts their thoughts, will be less likely to face the same type of harassment, threats and imprisonment, never mind the long, arduous and costly legal trouble that Mark Marek does. But if tyrannical censorship wins, anyone who expresses their opinion with which the government or the enforcers disagree, will become a likely next.
Here is the kicker – people representing the police state have nothing to lose charging innocent people with “corrupting morals” and it does not cost them a penny out of their own pockets as they have virtually unlimited resources available to them, courtesy of the tax-payers. Mark and his legal team are fighting to set a positive precedent that will keep the fundamental freedom of expression in favor of the publisher, not the censor.
Defenders of Freedom
To challenge the law as unconstitutional in order to achieve a permanent change to the criminal code, is a major undertaking that is expected to cost hundreds-of-thousands of dollars. World class experts will need to be invited to provide testimonies, and they charge for their expertise. The case may go all the way to the supreme court of Canada any may end up involving law makers from all Canadian Provinces and Territories.
As a major legal battle, this case will continue to be talked about for a very long time and is bound to make it to the history books. Everyone who contributes to the cause, will forever be able to claim the bragging rights for assisting with ensuring that the system does not get a green-light on censorship, and claim the title of the “Defender of Freedom”.
The time to become an inseparable part of something great, something that will change the world forever is now. Anyone who helps to defend freedom of expression, will not have lived their life in vain – no one will ever have the right to tell you that you have achieved nothing in life or that you have never done anything worthwhile.
What is Section 163 that Mark Marek is Charged with?
Section 163 (1) (a) is a dangerously broadly defined, old-fashion obscenity law that prohibits making, printing, publishing, distributing or circulating any obscene written matter, pictures, model, phonograph records or other things what-so-ever.
Section 163 dates back to 1892 – Canada’s earliest criminal legislation (phonograph record mention says it all). Even though the times have changed, Section 163 still includes subsections outlawing “advertising in medicine, drug or articles for causing abortions or miscarriages, curing venereal diseases or restoring sexual virility”.
Yes you are reading this correctly – under the nineteenth century law which was used to charge BestGore.com owner, ads for Viagra or cures for STI’s are ILLEGAL.
Restriction on freedom of expression must be accessible, foreseeable and formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct. Section 163 is so broadly defined that it makes it impossible to do so. The government, in protecting legitimate interests, must restrict freedom of expression as little as possible. Vaguely or broadly defined restrictions, such as those in the criminal code Section 163, even if they satisfy the “prescribed by law” criterion of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 19 (3) should be unacceptable because they go beyond what is strictly required to achieve the legitimate aim.
Section 163, the way it is currently worded in the Canadian criminal code should have no place in society that calls itself democratic. The wording is so broad virtually everything one does could be in violation of section 163. As such, it is a convenient section to use against a civilian who committed no crime. It allows corrupt institutions to silence and bankrupt anyone who voices their opinion against their misconduct.
Not All Police States Torture, But All Police States Censor
At this time, Mark Marek remains physically restrained from exposing opinions which he holds, even though they don’t advocate or condone personal violence. Freedom of expression but also access to information should not be a privilege, but a fundamental human right. Full unrestricted enjoyment of this is crucial to preempt oppression, maintain democracy and achieve individual freedoms. The abuse of power, which is embodied in censorship, can lead to all the other abuses of power. Censorship is essential to tyranny. Freedom of speech is the essential right, if all other rights are to be had. It is the fundamental defense of the individual against the government.
As is the case with Best Gore right now, in the past great pieces of literature, such as Les Fleurs Du Mal by Charles Baudelaire and Ulysses by James Joyce were subject to legal challenges on the basis of obscenity. To censor Best Gore, is to unlawfully restrict adults from content they have a right to see.
Everyone should have the right to freedom of expression without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers, because freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means to the discovery and spread of political truth.
The use of state power to prevent material from reaching the public is an extreme form of the violation of the freedom of expression known as “prior restraint”. The use of prior restraint censorship should in its self raise suspicion in Canada’s human rights record as it is expressly forbidden as an unacceptable limitation on freedom of express pursuant to Article 13 (2) of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights.
Attacks on, harassment, threats, imprisonment and silencing of journalists and reporters pose a very significant threat to independent and investigative journalism, to freedom of expression and to the flow of information to the public. Complicity by government and police in these attacks is a gross abuse of power.
How to Contact Mark
Because Mark cannot use the internet, emailing him directly will not reach him. In the meantime, if you can offer any form of assistance what so ever, send an email to the address listed below and I will relay the message to Mark:
vasilykirov187 [at] mail.ru
What People Searched For To Land Here:
- www kaotic com
- freedom of thoughts