F.R.S.C., LL.B. (University of British Columbia), LL.M. (University of Cambridge), Diploma, International Institute, Comparative Human Rights Law, (Strasbourg).
Professor. Member of the Bar Associations and Law Societies of Alberta and Manitoba.
Please click here for more information.
PDF version: The Role of the “Noble Savage” in Environmental Social Activism
Context of discussion: Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project
This blog is to discuss what I call the “The Role of the Noble Savage” in the pursuit of environmental justice through social activism. I will use the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project to provide context.
PDF version: The Harm of Hate Speech: Are Media Responses Knee Jerk, Impulsive and Thoughtless?
Case commented on: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (CanLii).
It is difficult to find balanced or thoughtful responses from the media on the subject of hate speech harms or hate speech laws. Oxford Professor Jeremy Waldron, in his book, The Harm in Hate Speech writes, “The philosophical arguments about hate speech are knee-jerk, impulsive and thoughtless.” This article argues that media responses to hate speech are likewise.
PDF Version: Where does legitimate religious expression end and hate speech begin?
Alan Hunsberger, a Wildrose candidate who ran for election for the provincial legislature in Alberta, believes the Edmonton Public School Board’s policy of adopting anti-bullying policies to protect gay and lesbian students is wrong. He says that to adopt such policies is “godless, wicked and profane.” He says that homosexuals ” will suffer the rest of eternity in a lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering.” He went on to write that others shouldn’t accept homosexuals for the way they are because “accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving.” For the full text of his statement see here.
Should we be concerned? Is this really a freedom of speech issue? Or is it something else?
Case Considered: Canada (A.G.) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011, SCC 44
PDF Version: The Safe Injection Site Precedent: Parliamentary Supremacy vs. Democratic Values?
The recent SCC ruling in Canada (A.G.) v PHS Community Services Society (Insite) caused quite a stir when the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the Minister of Health to exempt a supervised injection site and its clients from drug possession laws.
Some editorial writers and Internet bloggers immediately described the decision as “a new tool for activism” a threat to the “peace between judges and legislators” and as “a confrontation brewing between the Harper government and Canadian courts” on everything from prostitution laws to euthanasia (For example, see Kirk Makin, Landmark Insite Decision Threatens Peace Between Judges and Legislators, The Globe and Mail, October 17, 2011; Kevin l. Boonstra, Cardus, LexView 74.0 – Can Injecting Illegal Drugs Ever Be Safe?, October 26, 2011.).
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén