Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that. It is amazing that the member opposite would rise on a point of order if he had looked at the motion. Possibly he has not read it. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to deliver criminal justice programs and laws that reflect the will and concerns of the majority of Canadians, including issues like child pornography...
That is what I am speaking about right now and it is what I will continue to speak about. It may be very painful for members on the other side to listen to these things, but Canadians are concerned about them and that is why my party is debating these issues today.
In the case of Shaw, the justice determined that the essential self of John Robin Sharpe was invaded. Shaw determined that the right to privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by the limited beneficial effects of the prohibition of child pornography. Some may argue that the judgment may not always mean justice. This crucible we employ to render determination is fallible and sometimes so arcane that any scintilla of common sense seems lacking.
When Justice Shaw spoke of essential self I would take it to mean the worth, dignity and intrinsic value we place on our being and that of others. I would take it to mean our right to peace, security and self-determination. I would take it to mean our right to live without fear of reprisal and that any harm brought upon us, particularly by those in a position to manipulate or destroy that vulnerable human spirit that is present in the young, would be met with condemnation and swift justice.
That is why so many Canadians view the Shaw decision as a failure in rendering justice that protects individuals least able to protect themselves.