Author: Heather Beyko

PDF Version: R v Booyink: A Non-Stop Charter(ed) Flight to Protest in Canadian Airports?

Case commented on: R v Booyink, 2013 ABPC 185

If the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (“CCBR”) hasn’t yet made an appearance in your town, city or neighbourhood, chances are they soon will.  The CCBR is an educational, pro-life activist organization devoted to the stated objective of making Canada abortion-free.  Its goals are to expose as many Canadians as possible to images of, and to engage directly in conversations about, abortion.  The CCBR sees its messaging as educational in nature which might include any of the following strategies:

• Imagine opening your mail box to find a gripping pro-life postcard showing “invisible” aborted children.
• Then imagine walking down the street and seeing a poster of an abortion victim hanging from a pole in your neighbourhood.
• Walking further, you see activists holding signs and engage in dialogue about abortion.
• Then imagine driving through traffic and seeing a large truck with abortion imagery on its side and rear panels. (See Unmasking Choice – CAUTION – the CCBR may post graphic images)

Read More

By: Heather Beyko

PDF Version: Fowl Play? A Look into Recent Canadian Reform Efforts for Backyard Chicken Legislation

Case Commented On: R v Hughes, 2012 ABPC 250

The idea of local food sustainability is hard to argue with. Locally grown fresh food is valued among many and local food producers benefit greatly from community support and little to no operating or exporting costs. Yet the law can forbid certain actions that some may suggest are integral to advancing local food sustainability and the right to choose where your food comes from, or in this case, which chicken your eggs come from.

Read More

PDF version: Transporting Liberty: Where Is The Track Heading?

Case Considered: R v S.A., 2012 ABQB 311, overturning 2011 ABPC 269

In many Canadian cities and towns, public transit is the only available means for some citizens to go about their daily lives.  Can a balance be found in denying access to public transit to those who would abuse this service and the rights of other users of that service, in order to be safe, secure, and free of harassment or intimidation?  Or, have we come to a point where citizens who face the daily burden of harassment, rude and intimidating behaviour or interference from others on buses, trains and transit stops must simply accept that this is an inevitable cost of using a public transit service?

Read More