In the last week or so, there have been two high-profile cases of Canadians in positions of influence using their pulpits to bully their opponents with outrageous claims. Both of these cases relate to the use – or misuse – of police power.

The first case is that of Keith Lacey, the relatively new editor at a small-town newspaper in B.C. who, apparently in a fit of emotion, penned a 1,400-word column attacking a local RCMP officer who had the gall to pull him over and subject him to a breathalyzer test after he admitted to the officer he had been drinking earlier in the evening.

The breathalyzer readings registered “pretty much close to zero,” according to Lacey’s column in the Osoyoos Times, which ran under the headline ‘Self-righteous cops who treat innocent taxpayers like criminals is unacceptable.’ But the “traumatizing experience” of being subjected to a roadside test – “in front of his girlfriend,” no less – led Lacey to lash out in print at the police corporal who pulled him over.

The RCMP demanded a retraction of the column, which they described as defamatory. A bit of a firestorm ensued and the whole affair received national attention. Lacey initially stuck to his guns but after a few days changed his tune and issued a public apology to the officer.

“He did not deserve to be singled out for simply doing his job and I remain truly sorry for what has transpired,” the beleaguered editor wrote.

A day after the apology was published, the second case of bullying began. This time it happened in Ottawa.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, defending his government’s legislation that would vastly expand police powers to monitor electronic communications, stood in the House of Commons and suggested that anyone who opposes the proposed new law must be a pervert.

“He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers,” Toews said of Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia, who raised on behalf of Canadians what I think are some pretty reasonable questions about the legislation.

Scarpaleggia, as far as I know, neither produces child pornography nor does he “stand with” those who do. I’d be willing to bet that Jennifer Stoddart, Canada’s privacy commissioner, doesn’t either. Ditto University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist.

All of these people have raised legitimate concerns about the proposed new law which, among other things, would require Internet service providers to hand over customer information to police without a warrant, including names, unlisted phone numbers and IP addresses. If passed, the bill would also force Internet providers and other technology producers to provide a “back door” to make online communications accessible to police.

This concerns me. So, by Toews’ twisted logic, I guess I must support child porn, too. Likewise with the tens of thousands of Canadians who have signed their names to a petition opposing certain provisions within the legislation. And don’t think you’re getting off easy, either. If you have any doubt in your mind about this new law, you’ve cast your lot with the kiddie-porn makers, in the eyes of Canada’s Public Safety Minister, at least.

This is, of course, ridiculous. Unfortunately it’s not exactly unusual. Toews has been linking critics of this legislation to child pornographers for months, in fact, although perhaps not quite so directly and succinctly as he did with his latest blast.

The question I have: Where is Toews’ apology? 

DISCLAIMER: The Last Word is an opinion column, it is meant to provoke thought and debate. As such, any opinions written here are the writer’s own and do not reflect the viewpoint of any other Fitzhugh staff member or the directors of the Jasper Media Group Inc.