Author: albert

Many of us have heard Prime Minister Trudeau’s hostile comments about the truckers of the Freedom Convoy. We know about the efforts to keep food, fuel, and funds from truckers who, on the face of it, are peaceful demonstrators.

What rights do the truckers have to protest, if the protest annoys the government?

I am reminded of the landmark constitutional case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1959: [1959] SCR 121. Duplessis, premier and attorney-general of Quebec, was annoyed by the Witnesses of Jehovah, a religious group he saw as a small fringe minority with unacceptable views.

The Witnesses were publishing and selling religious tracts. Many Witnesses were charged under City of Montreal by-laws for distributing, peddling, and canvassing without a licence.

Roncarelli, a local restauranteur, acted as surety and provided bail for many of the Witnesses. This was obviously a perfectly legal thing for him to do.

But this helped the Witnesses, so Duplessis ordered the Quebec Liquor Commission to yank Roncarelli’s liquor licence. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Duplessis was wrong to make the order, and the Quebec Liquor Commission was wrong to obey it. The Supreme Court awarded damages.

In future will we think the government and police acted legally and reasonably against the truckers? Or will we see them as oppressors acting against human rights, like Duplessis?

# # #

In the case of Alberta Health Services v. Pawlowski, 2021 ABQB 813, Mr. Justice Germain of Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench, after finding two brothers in contempt of court, made a strange decision on sanctions.

I have no opinion on whether the finding of contempt of court was correct, but the decision on sanctions seems wrong. It may even tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Justice Germain ordered that the two brothers, whenever speaking out as to their views, would also have to make statements undermining their views. The exact wording of this compelled speech would be:

I am also aware that the views I am expressing to you on this occasion may not be views held by the majority of medical experts in Alberta. While I may disagree with them, I am obliged to inform you that the majority of medical experts favour social distancing, mask wearing, and avoiding large crowds to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Most medical experts also support participation in a vaccination program unless for a valid religious or medical reason you cannot be vaccinated. Vaccinations have been shown statistically to save lives and to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

Now, everything in that compelled speech may be true. But even if it is, I see no proper basis for compelling the brothers to say it. According to section 2 a. of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our fundamental freedoms include “freedom of conscience and religion”. Our fundamental freedoms also, according to 2 b., include “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.

As for the judge’s statement in paragraph 37 that Pastor Pawlowski (one of the two brothers) must express his views “in a respectful, hate-free way,” I strongly disagree. We live in a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. So the servants and agents of the Crown, and their actions and opinions, are not entitled to be spoken of respectfully or without scorn, even vitriolically expressed scorn.

COVID-19 is dangerous, but so is undermining our rights and freedoms.

You might also be interested in the following blog post by Leonid Sirota and Mark Mancini : Don’t Make Idiots into Martyrs – Double Aspect