Time to Boycott Indigo

I like Indigo. I like big book and magazine retailers. I like going into the Indigo, browsing their various offerings, and having everything in one place. It's convenient.

The same goes for Wal-Mart and Costco and, here in the U.S., Meijer's.

But, for the second time in six or so weeks, Indigo has gone ahead and censored a magazine. I just can't stand a retailer being so aggressive in determining what content is appropriate for me, and people like me. I can make my own decisions, Indigo, and I'm angry that you would take this opportunity away from me.

What did they ban this time? This time it's an issue of Free Inquiry, a secular humanist magazine catering to atheists, heathens, humanists, agnostics, and other non-religious folk. The reason? They haven't given a clear one yet, so we don't know, and that's part of what makes me so angry. If you are going to ban the sale of a magazine, you had better have a good story to tell. A good explanation. You shouldn't just ban something, and fail to alert your PR department, or news spokespeople why you are taking something off the shelves.

There is speculation about why, however. The first possible reasons is that Free Inquiry published four of the Danish cartoons in their April-May issue, and the ban on the June-July issue reflects Indigo's displeasure with having missed this fact in their craze to keep Danish cartoons off of their shelves. The second is an editorial by none other than philosopher Peter Singer in the current issue entitled "The Freedom to Ridicule Religion--and Deny the Holocaust." That editorial argues what the title implies.

The last time they banned a magazine was that issue of the Western Standard that published the Danish cartoons that sparked serious trouble in other parts of the world. I disagreed with that decision too. I had plenty to say about why publishing those cartoons was appropriate, and why news outlets in Canada made an error in news judgment in not publishing the cartoons.

I should make a few things plain. First, I don't mind that stores are legally permitted to determine what goes on their shelves. In fact, I think this is a good thing. So I'm not disputing Indigo's "right" to ban just whatever they'd like. Books with the colour purple on the cover, children's books, Chicken Soup for the Soul, and so on.

What I'm disputing is their decision in this case, and in cases similar to it. The response on my part, to show Indigo my displeasure, is to stop shopping at their stores. And to urge you, too, to just say no to Indigo.

Second, I don't dispute the banning or censoring, on the part of sellers, of certain materials that fall well outside of certain boundaries. In referring to the law (a separate issue), Peter Singer makes the following point (this is in that editorial in the Free Inquiry):

"Laws against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in circumstances where that incitement is intended to, or can reasonably be foreseen to, lead to violence or other criminal acts, are different, and are compatible with the freedom to express any views at all."

Third, I believe that a retailer with sufficient clout in a market has additional moral responsibilities. As it stands, Indigo is a giant. Supposing there were no other bookstores around, this bookstore's decision to censor would be as good as (as bad as) full legal censorship. It would amount to the same thing--the rest of us not getting access to a publication--even if the reasons for why this is bad would differ in the case of government versus private enterprise.

Indigo, of course, is not the only bookstore. There are others. But given Indigo's clout, they are, for very many of us, the sole, or a rare, venue for books. For this reason, I think they should feel additional pressure to be non-censorial. Pressure from customers (or, as in my case, former customers).