Kids as Excuse for Spying Was Completely Predictable

It wasn’t hard to predict that the Canadian government—no matter which party was in power—would one day seek to monitor people’s internet usage. And it wasn’t hard to predict that they would use children as the excuse.

In fact, I DID predict precisely this, more than 16 years ago when Jean Chrétien was prime minister, in an article I wrote called “Children: The New Excuse for Everything”, published in December, 1995. The internet was in its infancy; Google didn’t even exist then. I wrote:

“…Governments all over the world would like to control the Internet. They can hardly bear the thought of their citizens romping in an unregulated environment where political borders are irrelevant. The citizens, however, love the emancipation of cyberspace. What to do? Invent a crisis. Suddenly we're told, ‘The Internet is a danger to kids. Pornographers corrupt them with lewd graphics. Perverts lure them to illicit rendezvous. Let government control the Internet to save your children! (Of course, we'll also be reading all your e-mail.)’ "

So the Harper government's Bill C-30, the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” comes as no surprise.

I am pleased to see the firestorm of criticism that has met this bill. I’m particularly pleased to see the comments of John Williamson, a Conservative MP from New Brunswick who called the bill “too intrusive”. No doubt there are many in the Conservative caucus who share his views. Let’s hope they speak up and kill this bill before it becomes necessary to bring constitutional challenges to it.

A country in which it is left to the discretion of police officers to decide when they can compel the production of private information about citizens, without demonstrating reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a crime is in progress or has been committed, is called a “police state”.

PEI Human Rights Decision Ignores Probationary Periods

A recent PEI Human Rights Panel decision (McKinnon v. Inn on the Hill) held that the Inn on the Hill discriminated against Alison McKinnon when it dismissed her from employment.

The Harm Principle Should Be a Principle of Fundamental Justice

In a 2003 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada officially rejected the harm principle by finding that it is not a Principle of Fundamental Justice under Section 7 of the Charter. Now that almost 10 years have passed, I think that it’s time that the Court revisit its decision.

Some Words Must Never Be Uttered

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario believes that some words are so harmful they can never be uttered--regardless of context. In an extremely brief decision released January 17, 2012, Naomi Overend of the Tribunal ordered John Graham to pay $5,000.00 to Lorne Pardy, a former employee, after Graham use the word “faggot”.

Ian Thomson at Trial on January 30th and 31st

Canadians have a common law right to defend themselves, their family, and their property. This includes using reasonable force to protect yourself from physical harm. But this right--surely a natural right immune from government interference--is being eroded and is under attack.