Freedom Flyer October 1997 Cover

Freedom Flyer 32

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

April 1997




Editorial electronically reproduced from:

The London Free Press

August 21, 1997


Rights, freedoms shouldn't rely on majority view

The issue of marijuana smoking should have nothing to do with how many people use it, and everything to do with whether it should, rationally, be made legal.

By Robert Metz
The writer is the Ontario president of the Freedom Party of Ontario.

The editorial, Marijuana should remain illegal (Aug. 16) makes but a single superficial case: that it is quite acceptable for minorities to have their rights arbitrarily restricted simply on the basis of a democratic majority wishing it so.

I strongly disagree.

Whether a "majority" or "minority" of people smoke marijuana is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they possess the right to do so. Freedom exists in having the right to do something, not in the doing itself.

SHOPPING: A minority of people shop on Sundays, despite the fact that everyone now has the freedom to do so. A minority of people attend church on Sundays, even though everyone has the freedom to do so. A minority of people smoke cigarettes, get abortions, visit prostitutes, use pornography, join religious cults, or otherwise engage in what most "majorities" might regard as undesirable behavior - even though all have the freedom to do so.

Since these activities, per se, do not involve the violation of another individual's rights, none constitute criminal behavior.

I do, however, agree with your premise that it is a judge's duty to uphold the law. But in reference to Chris Clay's constitutional challenge, which law should he have upheld? The supreme law of the land which guarantees our freedoms? Or a law, openly admitted to be based on irrational premises and outright lies, which restricts our freedoms?

As individual citizens, we have only one mechanism available to protect us from the whims of the state (or of the majority) and that is the courts. It is thus one of the legitimate functions of our courts to strike down unjust laws. There is a history of precedent in this regard.

TRUTH, FACTS: But above all, our courts should be guided by truth, by fact, and by a steadfast adherence to every individual's fundamental rights and freedoms. Surely court determinations should be based upon these objective realities.

To his credit, Justice John McCart accepted the fact that the history of marijuana prohibition in Canada was indeed based upon ignorance and fraud. Regrettably, his decision had no bearing on the facts he accepted, nor on any consideration of fundamental freedoms.

To argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect against "trivial" limitations of rights is to argue that we have no rights at all. What this says about our justice system speaks for itself.

To add insult to injury, the Crown is now seeking a term of incarceration for Clay. In so doing, it is sending a message that dire consequences await those who would dare challenge its arbitrary authority.

If there's one thing that we should all learn from Clay's experience, it's that our rights exist not by right, but by permission only. Unfortunately, your editorial completely supports this premise.

I can personally think of no argument more dangerous to a civilized (free) society.




Contact FP
Freedom Flyer Newsletter

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002

FP logo (small)