October 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Justice Gates of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta has issued a ruling for Lethbridge Pro-Life (LPL) on LPL’s court claim against the City of Lethbridge on the City’s rejection of all five of LPL’s pro-life ads, including an ad which featured a healthy newborn baby with the caption, “Life Should be the Most Fundamental Human Right.” Another LPL ad featured a picture of a pregnant woman with the caption, “Equality Should Begin in the Womb” while yet another said, “Human Rights Should Not Depend on Who You Are.”
The Court judgment said that the City’s decision to ban the ads was unreasonable because while the City said it conducted LPL’s Charter rights in making its decision, its reasons did not show that. The Court also ruled that it was unreasonable to ban the ads on the basis of the LPL’s website and that rejecting the ads on the basis of inaccuracy does not accord with the right to freedom of expression because, “the fight to freedom of expression does not support the contention that the expression must be widely accepted, accurate or scientifically verifiable.”
Please SIGN this petition which asks the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to launch an investigation into the controversial WE Charity contract deal.
Canadians deserve a corruption-free government, but allegations of impropriety are hanging over matters related to the WE Charity contract deal with the current government.
And, only the RCMP is positioned to launch an independent inquiry into the issues of whether or not any laws were broken, and or possible abuse of political office for personal or family gain.
Indeed, the WE Charity was criticized in June 2020 when the Canadian government selected the charity to administer the Canada Student Service Grant program, a $900 million program which would help students experiencing financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of particular concern are revelations that WE Charity paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to members of the Trudeau family for past speaking engagements, and that the charity paid for Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s vacation (Morneau later repaid them).
These revelations obviously raise serious questions:
- What is the connection between WE Charity and high-ranking government officials?
- What, if anything, did either party stand to gain from this contract?
- Why and how was the $43.53 M contract awarded to WE Charity without going through a competitive bidding process?
- And, was the Lobbying Act violated?
The main concern is that the charity has deep connections with the Trudeau Family and other important government officials, and that serious conflicts of interests may have existed between members of government and the charity...and that laws may have been broken.
Although an investigation into the connection between the federal government and WE Charity was launched, questions have not been answered. Instead, more questions have been brought up.
Since the story broke, the Liberals have repeatedly delayed voting on the release of WE Charity documents.
And, just recently, a motion, which was sponsored by the Conservatives in the House of Commons and which called for an investigation into the relationships between WE Charity and the government and Ministers of the Crown and their families, was defeated.
But, the fact that the government and its political allies seem to be trying to bury this issue politically should not distract the attention of law enforcement who have a duty to ensure that government officials are held to account for serious breaches of conflict of interest.
No government leader or official should behave as though they are above the law.
Please SIGN this petition which calls on the RCMP to launch an independent investigation into the WE Charity controversy.
Then, please SHARE with your like-minded family, friends and relations.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
The Court also ruled on the issue of whether public complaints provide a legitimate basis for prohibiting expression, saying, “public upset and alarm are not sufficient to tip the balance away from the protection of freedom of expression, and that “… a strong and healthy democracy requires a willingness on the part of the public to accept that the expression of opinions and ideas may, at time, shock, offend and even disturb them.”
The Court also underlined that LPL’s Charter right includes the right to share messages some may deem unpopular: “Freedom of expression is meant to protect minority opinions from being drowned out by the majority.” The Court also found that the decision demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias because, in part, the City only looked at the negative responses to LPL’s ads and failed to consider the positive ones.
“This decision is a win for every Canadian who prizes the right to share an opinion free of government taking a biased position on one side while neglecting the duty to protect freedom of expression for all” says Carol Crosson, the constitutional lawyer representing LPL.
“The City should have considered our right to freedom of expression, and while the City contended that it did so, the Court found the opposite,” commented LPL.
Carol Crosson can be reached for comment at 403-796-8110.