Banning Book Not In The Best Interest Of Gravenhurst Farmers' Market

BANNING BOOKS IN GRAVENHURST - WHAT'S NEXT

     YOU KNOW, THE TOWN OF GRAVENHURST SHOULD REALLY GET IN THE BALL GAME. I SURE HATE SEEING HEADLINES LIKE "MARKET BOOK BAN," IN THE PUBLICATION DELIVERED TO MY MAIL BOX EACH WEEK. THE ARTICLE, "VENDOR GETS MARKET BAN AFTER WRITING BOOK," APPEARS IN THE AUGUST 28TH ISSUE, OF "WHAT'S UP MUSKOKA," AND DETAILS AT SOME LENGTH, A PAPER SQUABBLE AT THE LOCAL FARMERS MARKET, INVOLVING A FICTIONAL BOOK, BY THE SAME TITLE, "FARMERS' MARKET," WRITTEN BY ONE OF THE VENDORS AT THE EVERY-WEDNESDAY EVENT. THE CHAP HAS APPARENTLY HAD HIS MARKET VENDOR'S PERMIT REVOKED, AS A RESULT OF BEING BAD A THIRD TIME THIS YEAR. THE REALLY BAD PART, ACCORDING TO THE MARKET MANAGEMENT, WAS WRITING A "SLANDEROUS" BOOK, THAT USES MANY WELL KNOWN LOCAL CHARACTERS, IN SOME INTERESTING SCENARIOS…..AND I THINK THERE'S A MURDER PLOT THAT UNFOLDS AS WELL. THE MARKET MANAGER IS QUOTED AS SAYING THE WORK IS "SLANDEROUS," AND THEREFORE THE VENDOR HAS TO GO. IT'S NOT NICE APPARENTLY TO WRITE SUCH A PARODY……SOMEWHAT LESS FLATTERING THAN STEPHEN LEACOCK WOULD HAVE WROTE ABOUT, IN "SUNSHINE SKETCHES OF A LITTLE TOWN," BEING MARIPOSA OF COURSE. (ORILLIA).

     FIRST OF ALL, THE ARTICLE AND THE MARKET MANAGER ARE WRONG ABOUT SLANDER. SLANDER IS ORAL OR PRESENTED ELECTRONICALLY ON RADIO, TELEVISION ETC…..POTENTIALLY OVER THE PHONE, OR IN CONVERSATION. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PRINT, AND I'M SURPRISED THE MAGAZINE ALLOWED THIS ERROR TO RUN. THE WORD THE MANAGER IS LOOKING FOR, AND THE PUBLICATION SHOULD HAVE USED, IN ITS OVERVIEW, IS "LIBEL." YOU JUST CAN'T BE SLANDEROUS WITHOUT SOMETHING VERBAL COMING FROM SOMEWHERE, AND UNLESS IT IS A TALKING-BOOK, IT JUST DOESN'T APPLY…..AND ACTUALLY, SHOULD THE VENDOR DECIDE TO LEGALLY CHALLENGE HIS OUSTER FROM THE VENUE, HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ARGUE THAT THE REASON GIVEN WAS INVALID…..AS IT WAS NOT A CASE OF SLANDER. EVEN TO CLAIM LIBEL, AND MAKE THOSE KIND OF ACCUSATIONS, ONE SHOULD TRED SOFTLY AND CAREFULLY. MY FIRST DISCUSSION ABOUT LIBEL, AS A ROOKIE REPORTER, CAME FROM A VETERAN NEWS EDITOR WHO SAID, "NOW TED, YOU CAN CALL SOMEONE AN ASSHOLE, IF YOU CAN PROVE HE OR SHE IS ACTUALLY AN ASSHOLE. OTHERWISE, DO NOT SAY IT OR PRINT IT!" GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. THAT WAS THIRTY FIVE YEARS AGO, AND IT HAS SERVED ME WELL EVER SINCE. I HAVE NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A CASE OF LIBEL. I DON'T INTEND TO SCREW UP MY PERFECT RECORD, WHICH I HAPPILY HAVE AS MY HALLMARK…..WHICH I WHIP OUT AS A GOLDEN CREDIT WHEN RECRUITED FOR FREELANCE EDITORIAL CONTRACTS. AND YES, IT IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THROWING OUT OPINIONS AND ACCUSATIONS.

      I HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK. I'M NOT RACING OUT TO BUY ONE EITHER. I HAVE READ MANY SIMILAR, AND I BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. I DON'T CONDONE LIBEL, BUT THIS IS FOR A COURT OF LAW TO DETERMINE; NOT A BLOGGER LIKE ME, OR A FARMERS' MARKET MANAGER. THE AUTHOR DOES MAKE A GOOD POINT, WHEN HE SUGGESTS THAT THE NITTY GRITTY OF WHETHER IT IS DAMAGING TO THE REPUTATIONS OF THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MARKET, AS RELATES TO CHARACTERS AND SCENARIOS IN THE BOOK, IS TO RUN IT BY A LAWYER SPECIALIZING IN LIBEL. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. AS FOR KICKING THE CHAP OUT OF THE FARMERS' MARKET, I THINK THAT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE, BASED ON OUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND WHAT IS CONSIDERED FAIR AND EQUAL THROUGHOUT THE FREE WORLD. THE MANAGER AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHOULD BE CAREFUL PLAYING A CENSORSHIP ROLE, WITHOUT LEGAL ADVICE. YOU GET INTO A LOT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUES WHEN YOU BEGIN PUNISHING AUTHORS IN THIS FASHION. THE BEST WAY OF DOING THIS, WOULD HAVE BEEN, AS A FIRST STEP, FINDING OUT LEGAL OPTIONS FIRST; AND MY HUNCH IS, EVEN WITHOUT READING THE BOOK, THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN BETTER TO LET THE WHOLE ISSUE RUN ITS COURSE WITHOUT SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY TRYING TO PROVE LIBEL. THESE THINGS TEND TO PASS. I WAS AN EDITOR FOR LONG ENOUGH IN MUSKOKA, TO HAVE SEEN MANY, MANY MORE PROVOCATIVE SITUATIONS THAN THIS LATEST BOOK DEBACLE.

     I DON'T KNOW THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK, AND I HAVE NEVER MET THE DIRECTORS OF THE GRAVENHURST FARMERS' MARKET. OUR FAMILY DOESN'T GO TO THE FARMER'S MARKET, BUT WE DIRECT PEOPLE TO IT, WHEN THEY ASK AT OUR MUSKOKA ROAD STOREFRONT. I RECEIVE "WHAT'S UP MUSKOKA" IN THE MAIL, WITHOUT ASKING FOR IT, SO FOR ME, MY RIGHT IS TO COMMENT ON THE EDITORIAL CONTENT, IF I PLEASE. I DID SO LAST WEEK, WHEN I HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE REPORTING ON THE WOODCHESTER VILLA RESTORATION PROJECT……IN BRACEBRIDGE, SOMETHING NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART, AS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE MUSEUM IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEY NEVER GOT BACK TO ME. SO I GUESS THEY CONSIDERED MY EDITORIAL FEEDBACK UNWARRANTED, AND FRIVOLOUS. WHAT OTHER OPINION CAN COME FROM BEING IGNORED. SO THEY WON'T THINK ME A QUITTER, OR ONE EASILY DE-RAILED BY AVOIDANCE, I MUST ALSO SUGGEST, THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRUDENT TO HAVE INCLUDED A LITTLE EDITORIAL NOTE, WITH THIS ARTICLE, SUGGESTING THAT BANNING BOOKS, WHETHER IT IS FROM A VENUE, OR THE LOCAL BOOK STORE, IS SOMETHING QUITE SIGNIFICANT. REALLY. WHAT COUNTRY DO WE LIVE IN? DO YOU WANT THIS KIND OF COUNTRY, WHERE BOOKS CAN BE BANNED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FLATTERING TO THE READER. MARKET DIRECTORS MAY NEED TO READ A FEW MORE CONTEMPORARY BOOKS, TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT IS ACTUALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW…..BEFORE BEING SO CERTAIN ABOUT WHAT ISN'T.

     THE TOWN OF GRAVENHURST……..I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SUGGESTING THIS…….SHOULD ACTUALLY GET INVOLVED IN THIS ONE, AS IT IS THE TAXPAYER'S FIELD, AT MUSKOKA WHARF, AND REGARDLESS OF THE MARKET'S THREE STRIKE POLICY, THERE MAY WELL HAVE BEEN SOME OVER-STEPPING OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES HERE…….AND WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT, THEY ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ONE……IF IT TAKES OFF INTO A NATIONAL STORY, AS IT WELL COULD. SEEING AS THE STORY MAY IMPLICATE THE TOWN IN THE OVERALL BACKDROP OF THE BOOK, COUNCILLORS SHOULD COUGH-UP THE ASKING PRICE, AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THE "BOOK BANNING INCIDENT OF AUGUST 2013," FROM AN ACTUAL READER'S PERSPECTIVE…….AND NOT JUST WHAT COMES VIA THE LOCAL MEDIA. THE HISTORIAN HAS TAKEN NOTICE OF THIS…..AND HONESTLY, I'M WAITING ANXIOUSLY FOR OUR TOWN LEADERSHIP TO WEIGH-IN ON THE MATTER. MY OPINION…….RE-INSTATE THE VENDOR, AND THEN, IF DEEMED NECESSARY, SEEK LEGAL ADVICE ON WHETHER THE MATERIAL IS LIBELOUS OR NOT. IT'S NOT ABOUT SUPPORTING ANOTHER WRITER…….BUT WHEN YOU BEGIN THE CENSORSHIP THING……WELL FOLKS, THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. SO GRAVENHURST COUNCIL, SO GUNG-HO ABOUT EVERYTHING POSITIVE, AND NOTHING NEGATIVE, SHOULD CONSIDER THE RAMIFICATIONS OF REALLY BAD PRESS. I THINK THIS IS REALLY BAD PRESS. BY THE WAY, THERE IS NOTHING WRITTEN IN OUR CONSTITUTION OR IN THE BYLAWS OF THE GRAVENHURST FARMERS' MARKET, THAT DICTATES THAT IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO AGREE WITH DIRECTORS…..BE FRIENDS WITH ASSOCIATE VENDORS, OR TO BE LIKE-MINDED. YOU KNOW WHERE THAT CAN LEAD? A CRITICAL APPROACH TO LIFE ISN'T A BAD THING. SOMETIMES IT'S JUST INTERPRETED THAT WAY BY PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO SAY, "IT'S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!" I'LL TAKE THE HIGHWAY EVERY TIME.

     AS FOR THE AUTHOR……WELL SIR, YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST WRITER TO RUN INTO NEGATIVE PUBLIC REACTION. BUT HERE'S THE THING…….THERE WILL BE OTHER READERS WHO WILL CELEBRATE THE WORK, AND RECOMMEND IT TO THEIR FRIENDS…..AND MAYBE EVEN TWITTER ABOUT IT, AS BEING THE YEAR'S "BIG READ!"

     I REMEMBER ONCE, WHEN THE GRAVENHURST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THEN RUNNING THE TRAIN STATION VENUE, DECIDED THEY WEREN'T GOING TO CONTINUE SELLING "MUSKOKA TODAY," BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE PUBLICATION'S RECENT CRITIQUES. I WASN'T WRITING FOR MUSKOKA TODAY AT THE TIME, BUT I WROTE SOME BEEFY GUEST COLUMNS, ABOUT THE IGNORANCE OF SUCH A MOVE, AS WELL AS EXTREME SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS, AND I WROTE DIRECTLY TO THE CHAMBER ASKING THEM TO REVERSE THEIR DECISION. NONE THE LESS, I GAVE THEM A FEW LESSONS ABOUT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS…….WHICH APPARENTLY DIDN'T MOVE THEM. I DON'T REALLY EXPECT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GRAVENHURST FARMERS' MARKET TO GIVE A CRAP ABOUT MY OPINION OF THE SITUATION. I AM JUST AS SURE, THE TOWN OF GRAVENHURST WON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN GETTING INVOLVED IN SUCH A MOOT ISSUE AS "BOOK AND VENDOR BANNING" AT OUR MUNICIPAL PARK. BUT I HOPE READERS OF THIS BLOG WILL APPRECIATE, JUST WHAT IT ALL MEANS, TO OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, TO BE RESTRICTED FROM MAKING OPINIONS THAT AREN'T APPROVED BY SELF APPOINTED CENSORS.

     ONE MORE POINT. THE FINAL DECLARATION IN THIS ARTICLE, OF WHICH I AM REFERRING, SUGGESTS THAT NEGATIVE PRESS HURTS THE FARMER'S MARKET, AND THE FARMERS TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING. HERE'S AN IDEA. GET WITH THE TIMES. READ TWITTER NOW AND AGAIN. NEGATIVITY RUNS RAMPANT. CRITIQUES ABOUT OUR TOWN AND BUSINESSES ARE FREQUENT. EVEN TODAY I WAS READING HORRIBLE STUFF ABOUT ONE LOCAL BUSINESS, AND ITS TERRIBLE CONDITIONS. IT'S OUT THERE. BUT TO CONTROL OPINIONS……IT'S JUST NOT WHAT WE WANT IN THIS COUNTRY. THERE ARE WAYS OF HANDLING IT…..MUCH, MUCH BETTER, THAN CONFRONTATION…..WHICH ONLY SERVES TO EXACERBATE THE OFFENDING OPINION. I WOULDN'T WRITE OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, IF I HADN'T DEALT WITH IT A THOUSANDS TIMES OR MORE MYSELF. I VALUE OUR DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS. BOOK CENSORSHIP? NAW. THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING AT ALL!