I am sure I speak for almost all parents in expressing my disbelief at the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that values freedom of expression above child welfare. Surely, if we can accept the many other limits on freedom of expression that are forced upon us (such as the Quebec language law), we should be willing to sacrifice the right to own material that beyond any doubt causes profound harm to the completely innocent participants in its creation. This ruling is only the latest, but by far the most offensive, from a judicial system that is increasingly out of touch with the population that it supposedly serves.
On the anniversary of this country's founding it is abhorrent in the extreme to read that laws against the possession of child pornography have been effectively abolished by the B.C. Court of Appeal.
Madame Justice Mary Southin raises the spectres of the Gestapo and KGB to justify her ruling. This is not a matter of thought-control. At issue is our ability to protect children from material harm. Earlier this year, Judge Southin stated that it is perhaps time for Canadians to redefine our understanding of paedophilia. While we're at it, why not re-examine our definitions of rape and murder as well? It is precisely this type of legal sophistry from an appointed oligarchy of judges that is truly Orwellian.
The vast majority of Canadians feels that possession of explicit child pornography is simply wrong. I am no Bible-thumping conservative, but I know that a moral code is the foundation upon which society is founded. Any person who possesses child pornography is suborning the sexual exploitation of children, who, by definition, cannot provide consent. Any society that allows its children to be predated by psychotics cannot stand.
It is obvious from this ruling that we, as a society, have replaced the moral law, The Decalogue, with the vague and therefore infinitely flexible notion of liberty to be found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preservation of the rights and freedoms of perverts and criminals has become a sacred trust to be upheld. The right of the majority to be protected from evil-doers has become a secondary consideration.