Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. The rule of law means, among other things, that everyone is equal before the law, regardless of the citizen’s religious beliefs, political opinions, or moral convictions. Sadly, in some cases there appears to be a double standard and political bias when it comes to dealing with disruptive protesters.
Police and prosecutors have come down hard on Calgary pastor Derek Reimer for having protested and disrupted “drag queen story hours” at public libraries in Calgary.
It is a Criminal Code offence to cause a disturbance. It is also a crime to obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property. The police may have had reasonable grounds to charge Pastor Reimer with these offences, but he was acquitted of these charges in September 2024. The Crown is appealing the acquittal. However, in a different trial before a different judge, Pastor Reimer was convicted of criminally harassing Saddletowne Public Library service delivery manager Shannon Slater.
The punishment imposed on Pastor Reimer was severe, including 12 months of house arrest (with no right to host company) followed by two years of probation. He has also spent over 50 days in jail over the past two years, including time spent in respect of charges of which he was acquitted. The harassment in question did not involve prolonged harassment or threats of violence, and was based on one social media post of his peaceful interaction with Ms. Slater, who later received a message from a third party saying only “shame on you.”
Pastor Reimer’s defence counsel Andrew MacKenzie provided the court with multiple examples of people found guilty of criminal harassment who were actually stalking and threatening people: their punishment was a short period of probation, not house arrest.
If the charges, conviction, and penalty in R. v. Reimer are fair and just, then I am left to wonder why I have never seen or heard of police laying criminal charges against ideologically motivated protesters who disrupt or shut down pro-life events, and other events hosting conservative, libertarian, or otherwise unorthodox speakers.
In defending free speech on campus at Canadian universities over the past 20 years, I’ve lost count of the number of times that pro-life events and displays were physically obstructed by counter-protesters. The physical blockading of pro-life displays, and the shutting down of meetings with screaming and other disruptive behaviour, sometimes resulted in universities seeking to ban pro-life expression on campus; the university punished the victims rather than punishing the perpetrators. In other cases, these peaceful students were required to pay exorbitant security fees to deal with the bad—and in some cases criminal—behaviour of those who sought to silence the students’ message. Nobody was charged or arrested for causing a disturbance, or for interfering with the lawful enjoyment of property.
Loud, disruptive protesters shut down a speaking engagement of Dr. Jordan Peterson at McMaster University in March 2017. He was forced to leave the university classroom and go speak outside, where those who stood close enough could hear his words, but even outside the shouting and other loud noise-making continued. The police (and the university’s president, of course) did not object to this behaviour. Nobody was charged with criminal harassment, causing a disturbance, or interrupting the lawful use of property.
In July 2021, Winnipeg police stood by and watched as vandals tore down and damaged a statue of Queen Victoria on the legislature grounds, in broad daylight, presumably to protest against residential schools that were established during this queen’s reign. The Manitoba Crown, while possessing abundant video evidence of this blatantly criminal conduct, announced that nobody would be charged or prosecuted. Yet when Tamara Lich and Chris Barber played an active role in the entirely peaceful 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, the Crown devoted its resources to an extensive, full-scale prosecution that dragged on for 31 months. The verdict is expected in March 2025, 37 months after charges were laid.
When protesters shut down Canadian railways in March 2020, which is criminal conduct, they cited the environment and indigenous rights as their justification. Prime Minister Trudeau said that he wanted “constructive dialogue” with them. When a peaceful protest inconvenienced Ottawa residents in early 2022, he declared a national emergency, unleashed police violence, and froze the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians.
And let’s not forget William Whatcott, criminally charged with wilfully promoting hatred for having his small team of volunteers (dressed up as green, gay zombies) distribute literature during the 2016 Toronto Pride parade. The “Zombie Safe Sex Packets” contained flyers proclaimed in strident and unequivocal language that gay sex leads to negative physical and spiritual consequences. Eight years later, the case is still before the courts, with the Crown steadfastly devoting its scarce resources to seek a conviction.
Under the rule of law, the cause that one protests for or against should be completely irrelevant. Criminal charges should be laid only in regard to a person’s behaviour, without considering that person’s moral, religious, or political motivation. By making political decisions that favour woke politics while arresting and prosecuting the politically incorrect, police and Crown prosecutors are undermining public respect for the administration of justice. A return to the rule of law is long overdue.
John Carpay – The Epoch Times
