Back in June, a group of activists in the Lower Mainland distributed a parody issue of the Vancouver Sun, highlighting what they saw as the paper’s strong pro-Israel bias. As you can see, it was extremely well-executed. When I saw a copy at a local cafe, it took me a few moments (and a closer examination of the content) to realize that it was a parody. This press release from the Palestine Media Collective has more details.

Unfortunately, the giant media corporation that owns the Vancouver Sun is suing the parody’s creators.

A writ of summons filed by CanWest Mediaworks Publications alleges that long-time left-wing activist Mordecai Briemberg, other unidentified activists and Horizon Publications conspired to produce and distribute a phoney edition of The Vancouver Sun on June 7, 2007. […]

The suit said the defendants were “motivated by hostility to the principal shareholders of the plaintiff and by a desire to undermine, or hurt, the business of the plaintiff and its principal shareholders.”

The plaintiff’s writ, submitted by lawyer David Church, said Briemberg and six other unidentified people are involved in anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian media activities.

The writ alleges that the defendants “harbour antagonistic views towards the plaintiff, its principal shareholders and the reporting and editorial opinions expressed in the plaintiff’s publications, including in The Vancouver Sun.”

Just as a reminder, CanWest owns the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Vancouver Courier, the Victoria Times-Colonist, the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen, and a few dozen other major and minor Canadian newspapers — not to mention Global (one of the major Canadian television networks) and several cable TV channels. Clearly they have trouble with the concept of dissenting opinions.

An article from last week’s Vancouver Sun describes a deeply unsettling new policy at BC’s provincial archive:

British Columbia researchers who want to work with “sensitive” archival records — including writers, journalists and university professors — must now agree to random security checks of personal computers, offices and even their homes by the government. […]

What defines a sensitive document? It contains an individual’s name, address or telephone number; race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religious or political beliefs or associations; age, sex, sexual orientation, marital or family status; an identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned; fingerprints, blood type or inheritable characteristics; health care history including a physical or mental disability; educational, financial, criminal or employment history; anyone else’s opinions about the individual; the individual’s opinions, except if they are about someone else.

According to one researcher who has already been subjected to a security check, the penalty for noncompliance could be severe: “An individual who refused to provide the auditors with access to their home/office, or is in violation of the agreement, will have their research privileges at the B.C. archives revoked.”

Protecting personal information is a worthy goal, and it’s entirely reasonable to ask researchers to take basic security precautions when handling that sort of information. But random security checks are an extremely disturbing violation of researchers’ fundamental privacy rights. The Royal BC Museum, which houses the provincial archive, needs to rethink this policy and develop a more proportional approach to its protection-of-privacy responsibilities.

(Hat tip: Social Justice Librarian and Brian Campbell.)