CFAC on pedophilia

Family Advocates Under Fire
While Pedophiles Given a Free Ride

It is truly astonishing that while pedophiles are being hailed by the ‘cultural elite’ (mainstream media, Canadian Civil Liberties Association etc.) as the new heroes on the frontiers of free speech, those who are publicly coming out against the legalization of child porn are coming under fire. In responding to the 300,000 plus names on a petition asking parliament to restore the laws against child porn, a Liberal MP accused the organizers of creating a "lynch mob mentality that will not produce any results".

Another example of this bizarre twist of reality and justice is the controversy surrounding Alberta’s Provincial Treasurer - Stockwell Day. Mr. Day is considered a leading contender for leadership at both the provincial and federal levels, being widely appreciated for his policies amongst fiscal conservatives, social conservatives as well as democratic reformers. It’s his policies on social and moral issues that seem to put him in the bad books of many of the media.

The story the public is hearing via the mainstream media approximates the following:

"Mr. Day has taken public money to cover his legal costs and liability for attacking and defaming a lawyer who was simply performing his duty in defending an accused pedophile".

The facts are very different. We at CFAC believe Canadians have the right to know the truth on this case and in the light of the apparent smear campaign against Mr. Day, ask some meaningful questions as to what is really going on behind the scenes.

Here is a summarized statement of fact surrounding the controversy:

1.      A previously convicted pedophile was up on charges of showing child pornography photos to young children.

2. A criminal defense lawyer, who also happens to be a school board trustee in Red Deer Alberta, decided that he would accept this case.
3. The lawyer/school board trustee made the decision to defend his client by arguing that laws against child pornography violated the rights of his client and were unconstitutional (a position argued successfully in the BC case). During this time the matter became a controversial public issue in Red deer.
4. The Judge presiding over the case rejected the constitutional argument and found the pedophile guilty as charged and later sentenced him to prison.
5. A Red Deer woman, who had previously run for school board office, became a key figure in the controversy. She wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper questioning the appropriateness of a school board trustee, a person in a position of trust over thousands of children, accepting the case of a client charged with child pornography possession. She was widely quoted in the media on this matter.

This concern was amplified when the lawyer/ school board trustee focused his case on challenging the constitutionality of laws against child pornography possession. In other words, the lawyer at least appeared to be arguing in favor of the legalization of child pornography possession and given that the lawyer was also a school board trustee, the woman was asking the man to clarify his personal position on the issue.

6. Another school board trustee (non-lawyer) weighed into the controversy by writing a strongly worded letter against the woman and in defense of his fellow trustee. The woman’s comments were diminished by a subtle reference to her failed attempt to get elected to the local school board in the previous election.
7. At this point (after the pedophile was convicted), Stockwell Day, in his capacity of Member of Legislative Assembly for Red Deer North, wrote his own letter to the editor to address the issue along the following lines:

·         Mr. Day defended everyone's "right to a fair trial, even a pedophile charged with possessing child porn material".

• Mr. Day also defended the lawyer’s right to "freely proclaim his views"
• Mr. Day pointed out the obvious and serious consequences of child pornography possession legalization and that it was understandable that people would be concerned about the position of their school board trustee on that issue
• Mr. Day urged that before the next school board election, the second non-lawyer/trustee should simply clarify his personal position on this important issue

1.      Mr. Day’s letter to the editor was initially not printed in the local paper, but instead was forwarded to members of the media who did not report the full context of the letter. Lawyers, advocacy groups and others wrote angry letters and were quoted extensively saying Mr. Day had attacked a lawyer for defending a pedophile.

2. The lawyer/school board trustee then launched a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Day and the local news paper seeking $600,000 in damages
3. Mr. Day made application to a Provincial Treasury insurance plan - a plan for employees of the Alberta Government, including MLAs, for the purpose of protecting themselves against legal actions taken against them while serving in their capacity as government employees.
4. The media also accused Mr. Day of tapping public money to pay for his legal bills (even though the fund was known by the media to be a separate, fully funded and actuarially established insurance plan).
5. At the insistence of Mr. Day, the local newspaper did eventually print the letter that Mr. Day has written weeks earlier. By then, the media’s misinformation had already done its damage.
6. To clarify his position Mr. Day also wrote a letter to the lawyer/school board trustee in which he stated that he regretted the misunderstanding and that he had no reason to believe anything but good in terms of the lawyers intention or personal integrity on the issues in question. The media also misrepresented the contents of that letter as an apology for what was stated in the letter Mr. Day originally wrote to the paper.

At this point it appears that one of Canada’s mostly highly respected pro-family political leaders, in speaking out for parents and against child pornography, will have to defend himself in court on charges of defamation against those who appear to argue in favor of the legal right to possess child pornography. The irony is astounding and the hypocrisy of the advocates of ‘so called freedom of speech" is appalling.

Some might be thinking, at least Mr. Day will have his day in the court where fairness will surely prevail. That too may be wishful thinking. An Alberta Judge, Allan Fradsham, recently commented on this pending case by publicly criticizing Mr. Day and then stated (without even hearing Mr. Day's side) that Mr. Day had acted "inappropriately". Have any in the media made an issue of this Judge's inappropriate comments? Do a Judge's personal attacks and comments on a pending case, before it even goes to trial, not extraordinarily undermine our legal system? What does this say about our media and our judicial system?

Given their approach in addressing this issue it seems apparent that the position of the media/cultural establishment is as follows - YES to Child Porn Possession in the name of ‘freedom of speech’ and NO to being free to speak out against the legalization of child pornography in the name of ‘the integrity of our beloved legal system’.

In the light of what appears to be a behind the scenes sympathy for pedophiles and child pornographers on the part of ‘the elite’ in Canada’s political, judicial and media circles, concerned Canadians are urged to take up the cause of ‘moral sanity’ and demand immediate and meaningful action from their 'political leaders' against the legalization of child pornography PERIOD.

If they refuse, as I suspect they will, let's at least make sure they pay the price in the next election. It's not a 'lynch mob', it's 'democracy at work'.

Roy Beyer

President

Canada Family Action Coalition