'Free' Press and Censorship
Publications by the penal press were subject to restrictions outlined in Commissioner’s Directive No. 227, which pertained exclusively to "inmate publications." This directive purported to serve the interest of inmate's desire for self-expression, while also imposing stringent limitations, prohibiting "destructive criticism of the administration of justice or of other public bodies" and content describing institutional occurrences deemed "irrelevant" to the publication's subscriber base.
Nearly all penal press publications featured disclaimers or notices within their issues. For instance, the 1951 edition of Mountain Echoes explicitly stated its commitment to avoiding articles of a "scurrilous" nature. More commonplace declarations, as exemplified by Off the Wall in 1974, underscored that the published articles did not necessarily reflect the views of the administration or the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). In a rare departure from such cautionary disclaimers, The Quill in 1968, seemingly immune to censorship, proudly declared its articles as "deliberately outspoken." This exceptional instance stands in stark contrast to the prevailing trend of administrative oversight and censorship observed in other penal press publications.
The Criminology Library possesses a limited number of penal press issues from the 1950s. However, the existing issues provide an insight into the issues of censorship faced by the earliest publications. In October 1956, writer 'A.M' in Mountain Echoes, wrote, “If an inmate editor were asked what, in his opinion, constitutes the biggest handicap to publishing a penal magazine the chances are that he would undoubtedly mention the … often too heavy hand of the censor board.” To which he continues, “Censorship … hurts all over and the only pills that seems to ease its constant ache is a rosy hued article touting the 'all’s wells in the happy family' sign. That’s a bitter pill to swallow.” The author contends that a prison publication genuinely represents the inmate only when the latter can articulate uncensored opinions and thoughts and"not a watered down version that echoes and compliments the views of officialdom.” However, with these earliest publications being funded and supported by the prison itself, this 'watered down' approach, with an internal focus on sports, social events and current news, is prevalent.
By the 1970s, titles increasingly decried and pushed the limits of censorship, and marked when whole or partial articles had been censored. Tarpaper published at Matsqui in Abbotsford, BC, was one such publication. “Tarpaper is not produced in a free society and is censored,” the editor proclaimed in an article on censorship in September 1973. In April 1978, censorship was back on the pages of Tarpaper pertaining to the Women’s Prison at Oakalla, which at the time was the subject of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the issue of sexual misconduct by guards. The issues of Tarpaper regarding the inquiry were heavily censored or completely removed from publication. Regarding a censored article, removed for violating Commissioner's Directive #227, which does not allow anything considered “destructive criticism.” Haas, the editor, pushed back by pointing out that, in his opinion, “it was one of the most constructive articles that I have ever read!”
Odyssey (1978-1982), published at Millhaven in Bath, Ontario, began as a result of the deaths in solitary confinement between 1974-1976 (see prison justice day for more information on this topic) and immediately emerged as one of the most radical and critical of the penal press titles. According to their notice, posted on the first page of each issue, "the policy of the Odyssey Newsletter is to bring to the attention of the public what we, the members of the Odyssey Group and other contributing authors, believe to be gross injustices perpetrated by the Canadian Correction Service, Canada's Justice System and all other services related to the correction field." This same notice is quick to point out, "the views expressed in the Newsletter are those of the contributing authors with the full support of the Odyssey Group Members. They are not the views of the Canadian Correctional Service, nor are they necessarily those of other prisoners." Odyssey joined a handful of other publications from this period, including Tocsin, published by the Collin's Bay John Howard Society chapter, in writing a more political-focused and activist approach to the incarceration experience.
However, it is important to note that Odyssey was not immune to censorship within its pages, as evidenced by the editor's acknowledgement that "articles listed in the 'table of content' that are not shown are those disallowed by censorship," along with instances of partial censorship within the text. In issue ten (1981), editor Tommy Smith addressed this issue directly, stating, "Not being able to express one's true feelings is profoundly insidious, leading to a sense of frustration akin to a desire to scale the walls or scream with such intensity that the very echo would shatter them. This encapsulates the impact of censorship, particularly when one is aware of self-censorship due to the anticipated disapproval of one's genuine sentiments. ... We're looking for different sides of the mountain and seeing entirely different terrain. Their truths make me feel like puking. The same truths make them happy but that's what life is all about."
In the same issue in which the article, "A letter from Kent" appears in the table of contents but is conspicuously absent from the magazine itself, Smith notes that Odyssey had been banned by the Kent Institution in Agassiz, BC. Reflecting on the ban, he remarked, "Although I haven't seen any, we're promoting insurrection in this Newsletter," highlighting the inconsistency in censorship practices and the divergent standards regarding permissible content across different institutions.
Click through the images below to read more articles and examples of censorship
