Oh Canada! We stand on guard for thee...

... it is difficult to imagine a more important guarantee of freedom to a democratic society than that of freedom of expression. A democracy cannot exist without the freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. These opinions may be critical of existing practices in public institutions and of the institutions themselves. However, change for the better is dependent upon constructive criticism. Nor can it be expected that criticism will always be muted by restraint. Frustration with outmoded practices will often lead to vigorous and unpropitious complaints. Hyperbole and colourful, perhaps even disrespectful language, may be the necessary touchstone to fire the interest and imagination of the public, to the need for reform, and to suggest the manner in which that reform may be achieved.

The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies. Caustic and biting debate is, for example, often the hallmark of election campaigns, parliamentary debates and campaigns for the establishment of new public institutions or the reform of existing practices and institutions. The exchange of ideas on important issues is often framed in colourful and vitriolic language. So long as comments made on matters of public interest are neither obscene nor contrary to the laws of criminal libel, citizens of a democratic state should not have to worry unduly about the framing of their expression of ideas. The very lifeblood of democracy is the free exchange of ideas and opinions. If these exchanges are stifled, democratic government itself is threatened.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that the first step taken by totalitarian regimes is to muzzle the media and then the individual in order to prevent the dissemination of views and opinions that may be contrary to those of the government. The vital importance of freedom of expression cannot be overemphasized. It is important in this context to note that s. 2(b) of the Charter is framed in absolute terms, which distinguishes it, for example, from s. 8 of the Charter, which guarantees the qualified [page183] right to be secure from unreasonable search. The rights entrenched in s. 2(b) should therefore only be restricted in the clearest of circumstances.

Stated by Cory J in R. v. Kopyto (1987), 24 O.A.C. 81 and cited with approval by L'Heureux-Dube in Committed for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139 (S.C.C.).

Enough said...

David G. Chow
Calgary Drug Lawyer
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyers

www.duicalgary.com

Does our Government Fear the People?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Question: Does any branch of Canadian government, whether it is Municipal, Provincial or Federal, truly fear the people?

Given Canada purports to be a country of free people, where its Government acts on behalf of its citizens, this question, as juxtaposed against the powerful statement by Thomas Jefferson, is important. For if our Government does not fear the people, one is left to wonder whether Canadians really exist in a free and democratic society, or whether such belief is becoming more illusion than reality.

Now, I am not saying Canada is not a wonderful place to live; or that citizens in our country do not exist as relative free people. What I am saying is that we need to be ever vigilant in asking questions that enliven the collective consciousness so that our Government remains honest and our liberty does not become illusory.

In querying whether our Government fears its citizens, it is productive to apply this basic question to everyday events identified in the media and elsewhere.

For example:

When our elected representatives refuse to make transparent spending the hard earned money of Canadians, do they fear the people?

See "Harper Sidesteps Audit Fray": http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=3060917

See "Opposition to Spending Audit could bite MPs in the Wallet": http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/expenses+under+microscope/3061268/story.html

It is important to remember, the Government does not earn its own money. By operation of law, it takes money from its citizens and presumably spends it in the best interests of the people. And it is not just about spending the money of Canadians, it is about spending dollars that have been extracted from the labour of Canadians. So when the Government has become so indifferent to its citizens, where it simply declines to reasonably disclose Government spending -- and in particular -- expense accounts, it is questionable whether it fears those from whom it is collecting its revenues.

When our Government enacts laws to pillage the private property of its citizens or uses such laws to pursue citizens without grounds to do so, does it fear the people?

See "Restitution Act does a Nifty End-Run around Civil Liberties: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Restitution+does+nifty+around+civil+liberties/2696207/story.html

In the Thompson case, the Alberta government pursued the legitimately owned private property of a law abiding senior citizen. But for the efforts of Ms. Thompson and her lawyers, Michael Bates and Karen Molle, it arguably would have done everything in its power to claim her property. In any event, there was no evidence to the contrary.

In pursuing Ms. Thompson, the Government was not contrite; it offered little or no care for a Canadian who did nothing in her life other than work hard, obey the law and make Alberta a better place to live. It was only after a Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench ruled against the government that it offered a token apology.

Does this conduct strike anybody as a Government acting in fear of the people?

When Government is in the business of creating and enforcing criminal and quasi-criminal offences for the purpose of generating additional revenues, does it fear the people?

See: http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/08/04/10354476-sun.html

When Government uses fear to legitimize the expansion of police powers to intrude on the private lives of citizens, does it fear the people?
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/City+hopes+warning+stickers+Calgary+payphones+will+discourage+criminal+activity/1790663/story.html

When Government is prepared to make everyday citizens charged with crimes the local pariah by publicly denouncing them in the press, but keeps secret the identity of law enforcement officials who have offended the law, does it fear the people?

http://calgarycriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-as-rick-and-alison-saynot-as-they-do.html

When Government actually proposes a bill making it illegal for citizens not to vote, does it fear the people?

http://calgarycriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2010/03/it-ought-to-be-illegal-to-dowell.html

Arguably, the everyday conduct of various levels of Government suggests that it does not fear the people. That said, whether citizens are afraid of the Government or not, the next question is, should they be?

Of course, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "People should not be afraid of their Governments. Governments should be afraid of the people".

In this writer's view, Government acting without fear of the people, is Government acting on the edge of tyranny.

David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
Molle Roulston Chow
www.calgarydefence.com