Something deeply disturbing is happening to rights that Canadians have taken for granted long before Canada became Canada. The right of peaceful assembly, and the right to peaceful protest, are rights that were painfully acquired over the last thousand or so years. But, if some politicians have their way, those rights are about to go their way “like dust on the wind” on the frivolous grounds that the protester “caused offence”..The latest attack comes from the current Calgary’s mayor’s stated intention to enact bylaws that will prevent any protestor from saying anything that might cause offence, or hurt the feelings of members of groups that the mayor favours..What sparked this mayoral brainwave was a planned protest by people opposed to an event exposing children to so-called drag queens. The mayor declared that opponents of this event must be 'alt right' and promoters of hatred against the aforementioned drag queens..Her remedy was to formulate a bylaw that will criminalize such behaviour, with expensive tickets handed out to offenders. The dollar amounts on the tickets weren’t established, but it is quite clear that the mayor’s intention is to stop such protests from occurring..To this mayor, things are black or white. A drag queen, and his supporters, are on the side of “inclusion” and “community acceptance” while any parent unhappy with the idea that their children should be exposed to “education” from men in dresses, rubber breasts and makeup, is an “alt right hater”. The ticket goes to anyone causing offence to the drag queens..This mayor seems unconcerned that the rights of these “haters” to peaceful protest will be revoked by her bylaw. To her, these parents have views that are “unacceptable”, so they have forfeited their rights..The mayor appears to be quite comfortable running roughshod over people’s fundamental rights in this arbitrary way. And the fact that there might indeed be a few “alt right” opportunists who involve themselves in the protest to further their agendas is proof to this mayor that the great majority of reasonable, concerned parents must be prevented from voicing their objections at all. Causing offence by having “unacceptable views” that “cause offence” is enough, in this mayor’s opinion, to do away with that thousand year history of the right to protest. She reserves to herself the right to determine which views are “unacceptable”, and which rights should be forfeited on her command..But where did such an idea come from? Who else do we know that has the same philosophy about “unacceptable views”?.Why, it is our prime minister himself. Last winter, during the convoy protests, he was asked why he had supported and participated in the previous summer’s BLM/Antifa protests, but was even refusing to meet with any of the convoy protesters. He opined that participants in the one protest had “acceptable views” while those in the other had “unacceptable views”. It was that simple to the prime minister. As it appears to be that simple to the Calgary mayor..It does not seem to even occur to either of these worthies that peaceful and reasonable people can have very different views about issues, and still be peaceful and reasonable. The parents concerned about exposing their children to the gyrations of the drag queens might have strong beliefs that they would be prematurely sexualizing their young children by doing so. Those concerns are every bit as legitimate as the mayor’s concerns about being “inclusive”..The fact that the mayor or the prime minister might not agree with the parents doesn’t make the parents’ opinion invalid, or “unacceptable”. Similarly, the convoy protesters might have believed strongly that the federal government’s decision to force vaccine mandates on them was a bad decision, and harmful government overreach. The fact that the prime minister had a different opinion didn’t make the convoy protesters” opinions invalid or “unacceptable”..The fact is that in a healthy democracy there are as many opinions as there are people. As long as those opinions don’t involve advocating violence or other criminal behaviour they are all “acceptable”. Every one of those citizens is entitled to state their opinion, and to peacefully protest actions or events that they disagree with. In fact, democracy is impossible without those things..And the fact that a protester might hurt someone’s feelings, be rude, or cause them offence is neither here nor there. We have a Criminal Code for criminal offences. Hurting someone’s feelings is not a criminal offence. Being rude is not hate speech or violence — just words. Short of a protester breaking the law, that citizen is entitled to make their voice heard, even if the recipient of those words is offended..Further, we don’t need prime ministers or mayors telling us what to think, or what to say. Their opinions are of no more intrinsic worth than those of anyone else. Above all, we don’t want these temporary residents in the halls of power to even attempt to stop us from exercising the civil liberties that are the birthright of every Canadian..And if they try to shut us up on the grounds that we are hurting someone’s feelings, we should risk hurting their feelings by voting them out of office, and sending them on their way..Brian Giesbrecht is a retired Manitoba judge.
Something deeply disturbing is happening to rights that Canadians have taken for granted long before Canada became Canada. The right of peaceful assembly, and the right to peaceful protest, are rights that were painfully acquired over the last thousand or so years. But, if some politicians have their way, those rights are about to go their way “like dust on the wind” on the frivolous grounds that the protester “caused offence”..The latest attack comes from the current Calgary’s mayor’s stated intention to enact bylaws that will prevent any protestor from saying anything that might cause offence, or hurt the feelings of members of groups that the mayor favours..What sparked this mayoral brainwave was a planned protest by people opposed to an event exposing children to so-called drag queens. The mayor declared that opponents of this event must be 'alt right' and promoters of hatred against the aforementioned drag queens..Her remedy was to formulate a bylaw that will criminalize such behaviour, with expensive tickets handed out to offenders. The dollar amounts on the tickets weren’t established, but it is quite clear that the mayor’s intention is to stop such protests from occurring..To this mayor, things are black or white. A drag queen, and his supporters, are on the side of “inclusion” and “community acceptance” while any parent unhappy with the idea that their children should be exposed to “education” from men in dresses, rubber breasts and makeup, is an “alt right hater”. The ticket goes to anyone causing offence to the drag queens..This mayor seems unconcerned that the rights of these “haters” to peaceful protest will be revoked by her bylaw. To her, these parents have views that are “unacceptable”, so they have forfeited their rights..The mayor appears to be quite comfortable running roughshod over people’s fundamental rights in this arbitrary way. And the fact that there might indeed be a few “alt right” opportunists who involve themselves in the protest to further their agendas is proof to this mayor that the great majority of reasonable, concerned parents must be prevented from voicing their objections at all. Causing offence by having “unacceptable views” that “cause offence” is enough, in this mayor’s opinion, to do away with that thousand year history of the right to protest. She reserves to herself the right to determine which views are “unacceptable”, and which rights should be forfeited on her command..But where did such an idea come from? Who else do we know that has the same philosophy about “unacceptable views”?.Why, it is our prime minister himself. Last winter, during the convoy protests, he was asked why he had supported and participated in the previous summer’s BLM/Antifa protests, but was even refusing to meet with any of the convoy protesters. He opined that participants in the one protest had “acceptable views” while those in the other had “unacceptable views”. It was that simple to the prime minister. As it appears to be that simple to the Calgary mayor..It does not seem to even occur to either of these worthies that peaceful and reasonable people can have very different views about issues, and still be peaceful and reasonable. The parents concerned about exposing their children to the gyrations of the drag queens might have strong beliefs that they would be prematurely sexualizing their young children by doing so. Those concerns are every bit as legitimate as the mayor’s concerns about being “inclusive”..The fact that the mayor or the prime minister might not agree with the parents doesn’t make the parents’ opinion invalid, or “unacceptable”. Similarly, the convoy protesters might have believed strongly that the federal government’s decision to force vaccine mandates on them was a bad decision, and harmful government overreach. The fact that the prime minister had a different opinion didn’t make the convoy protesters” opinions invalid or “unacceptable”..The fact is that in a healthy democracy there are as many opinions as there are people. As long as those opinions don’t involve advocating violence or other criminal behaviour they are all “acceptable”. Every one of those citizens is entitled to state their opinion, and to peacefully protest actions or events that they disagree with. In fact, democracy is impossible without those things..And the fact that a protester might hurt someone’s feelings, be rude, or cause them offence is neither here nor there. We have a Criminal Code for criminal offences. Hurting someone’s feelings is not a criminal offence. Being rude is not hate speech or violence — just words. Short of a protester breaking the law, that citizen is entitled to make their voice heard, even if the recipient of those words is offended..Further, we don’t need prime ministers or mayors telling us what to think, or what to say. Their opinions are of no more intrinsic worth than those of anyone else. Above all, we don’t want these temporary residents in the halls of power to even attempt to stop us from exercising the civil liberties that are the birthright of every Canadian..And if they try to shut us up on the grounds that we are hurting someone’s feelings, we should risk hurting their feelings by voting them out of office, and sending them on their way..Brian Giesbrecht is a retired Manitoba judge.
