As politicians jockey for higher rankings in the polls, some people are left wondering “who’s standing up for the issues? who’s standing up for freedom?” Well, it’s up to us. We can continue waiving our banners in the stands, or we can get up, get engaged and behind those politicians whose priorities lie with the issues, instead of the team they play for in this game our political system has turned into. We need to get to know our candidates instead of blindly voting for the team they represent. Because the issue of freedom doesn’t fit neatly into any one party.

But, as Ron Paul has discovered, freedom has the power to unite when you put partisanship aside. In his book, The Revolution: A Manifsto, he writes:

By the end of 2007, more than twice as many Meetup groups had been formed in support of our campaign than for all the rest of the candidates in both major parties combined. I have never seen such a diverse coalition rallying to a single banner. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, constitutionalists, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, antiwar activists, home-schoolers, religious conservatives, freethinkers – all were not only involved, but enthusiastically so. And despite their philosophical differences in some areas, these folks typically found, to their surprise, that they rather liked each other.

The mainstream media had no idea what to make of it, since we were breaking all the rules and yet still attracting such a varied and passionate following. I began making this a central point of my public speeches: the reason all these different groups are rallying to the same banner, I said, is that freedom has a unique power to unite us.

In case that sounds like a cliché, it isn’t. It’s common sense. When we agree not to treat each other merely as a means to our own selfish ends, but to respect one another as individuals with rights and goals of our own, cooperation and goodwill suddenly become possible for the first time.

And that’s what needs to start happening here in Canada. There’s more to politics than partisanship.

If you’re interested existentialism, I highly recommend checking out a movie called Waking Life. You should see it even if you’re not.

While these are all great reasons to legalize pot, I was struck by the fact that hardly anyone is talking about the most important issue: freedom.

Have we become so used to being babysat by the govenment that we don’t mind them telling us how to live our own lives? Are adults capable of weighing the risks versus the benefits of pot use on their own –  or do we need the government to make that choice for us?

We need to be thinking bigger than just pot…

Update:

A Canadian Member of Parliament has also called for an end to prohibition. His reasoning: it would help to curb gang violence. Once again, no mention of freedom.

Update 2:

In light of increasing gang violence, the Conservative government in Canada is getting tougher on gang-related drug crime. Why not just legalize drugs and take the wind right out of the sails of gangs? Remember Al Capone? You don’t hear about gangsters killing people over alcohol now that it’s legal. It’s all drugs, now.

A story that generated much publicity in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become the centrepiece of a Supreme Court hearing that could permanently alter the scope of defamation law in Canada.

Lawyers for the Ottawa Citizen and more than a dozen other media organizations urged the top court yesterday to endorse a new defence against libel that would protect properly researched stories published in the public interest, even if they contain errors.

Full Story (Thanks for bringing this story to my attention, Dad) 

As someone who practices journalism, this story is particularly relevant to me. As the law stands now, if I publish something that could potentially tarnish someone’s reputation, I can be charged with libel even if I approached the story with the best intentions for public interest or if the information was false because one of my sources lied to me. This makes publishing controversial stories quite risky, and discourages journalists from pursuing important stories that could put them in hot water. Depending how this case goes, that could all change.

When Will Breen tried to form his campus group, he faced a lot of criticism: 

One elected council member set the tone of debate, scoffing that Breen’s group would be nothing but a “pornography and cigar club.” As a man, he huffed, he didn’t require representation. Other speakers were miffed and simply couldn’t see the need. The motion was defeated.

At another forum, a female professor could barely tolerate hearing Breen’s reasons for starting a Men’s Collective. “She was saying that men do not have need of representation, that we have historically been the oppressors, that we have no position of disadvantage,” the fourth-year geology student recalled.

But Breen isn’t forming another group to compete for victim status. He questions why everyone thinks a group should be “disadvantaged” to have an advocacy group.

“Men have issues just like everyone else,” he maintained.

Full Story

Imagine if someone called the Women’s group a “baking and knitting club.”

Breen eventually was granted the right to start his group, which will receive $400 in funding. That, compared to the $5,000 per year and  $2,000 startup grant the Women’s Collective gets. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gender Commission gets $2,000 per year.

Thanks to Fraser for bringing this story to my attention.

At least they’re talking about it in Europe.

PARIS — Right-to-die controversies are playing out in European media and parliaments in stark contrast to Canada where there is no momentum to amend Canada’s law that criminalizes assisted suicide and euthanasia, experts say.

In Italy, Eluana Englaro, left in a permanent vegetative state after a car accident 17 years ago, was allowed to die this past week amid a controversy that divided the nation.

Full Story

Bravo to Queen’s University for abandoning the creepy “Intergroup Dialogue” program, whereby a small squadron of hired racism-sexism police was to be turned loose on student residences to survey, report on and intervene in incidents of offensive speech.

Full Story

[Ted] Kindos owns Gator Ted’s Tap & Grill in Burlington. Four years ago, he asked a marijuana smoker to step away from his front door.

The medically licensed toker complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission of bias against a disabled person. He won.

Kindos was about to pay the fine and post obligatory signs saying, “We accommodate medicinal marijuana smokers,” when a different government agency told him he could lose his liquor licence. Serving anybody possessing a controlled substance – prescribed or not – is against the law.

Full Story

Medicinal marijuana smokers certainly have a right to access their medicine, free of discrimination (you can even argue that anyone should have a right to do anything to their own bodies as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights – but there are laws preventing that). But shouldn’t people also have a right to protect the well-being of their business? Would the toker be any worse off if he had simply moved a few meters away from the entrance, away from the families that regularly passed through? Apparently a compromise wasn’t good enough.

After spending $40,000 to fight the rights complaint – the government covered [the smoker, Steve] Gibson’s costs – Kindos announced last May he would settle. But on seeing the offer, he changed his mind. He was ordered to pay Gibson $2,000 for pain and suffering, train staff in the human rights code, educate the public about the code, and post the signs.

Discovering he could lose his licence proved the last straw.

Kindos must continue to fight the complaint or lose his business, he says. Legal bills could also bankrupt him but a lawyer has agreed to take the next stage without charge.

All this because the Ontario Human Rights Commission got involved in a situation that could have easily been worked out between two individuals.

Should a public university, funded by taxpayers, be able to censor controversial speech on campus? According to the University of Calgary, the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” In spite of its stated mission to “seek truth and disseminate knowledge,” and in spite of advertising itself as “a place of education and scholarly inquiry,” the University of Calgary has charged some of its own students with “trespassing” because they set up a pro-life display on their own campus this past November.

Full Story

People have varying life perspectives – sharing those perspectives enables progress. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the message or not, cutting it off only contributes to ignorance. 

The fact the University of Calgary has allowed other controversial displays to go on raises questions about their motives in this particular case:

Moreover, the university has expressed no qualms about other controversial large colour displays, including ones showing the effects of torture on political dissidents in China, the cruelty of animal testing and the consequences of spousal abuse. It seems gory and disturbing displays on campus are fine–as long as they do not convey a politically incorrect view on abortion.

A publicly funded educational institution getting involved in a public debate is one thing – and that’s another question altogether that we can leave for another time. But, assuming it’s perfectly acceptable for them to participate in the debate, is there anything that can justify silencing the other side?