(Need for balance and compromise in public discussions of controversial issues).

• Author: Mildon, Marsha

As I work on this issue of LawNow, several instances have led me to question how we Canadians can have informed and reasoned discussions about issues that are important to us. From spring and summer elections to the ongoing debates on what to do with young offenders, I have felt an increase in the polarization and vitriolic level of debate and a decrease in attempts to find balance and compromise.

The highest profile debate lately has raged around the decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. John Robin Sharpe, that held the part of the current anti-child-pornography law which prohibits private possession is too broad and thus, infringes the Charter rights of freedom of thought, expression, and privacy.

Before I proceed any further, I want to be clear about two issues: one, I despise child pornography in all its forms; two, I believe our Charter rights are the most fundamental legal rights we have and must be protected. However, my point here is to discuss the problems with the nature of the debate, not to discuss the merits of that case.

In British Columbia, at least, the various media brought us everyone from politicians to professors to preachers -- all taking what seem to me to be extremist positions and spouting mis-information on both sides of the argument.

For example, I have heard civil libertarians suggest that families who take photos of a new and naked baby are liable to arrest for the family photo album. On the hand, I have heard anti-pornography activists argue that if a person fantasizes -- though never acts on the fantasies -- about sex with children and writes these fantasies in a personal and private diary, that person should be subject to arrest, just to be safe.

Neither of these positions seem to me reasonable; what's more neither of these positions seem to be what is contemplated by the law itself nor the Court of Appeal Justices who made the decision. (And I have read all 166 pages of the decision online.)

So the public discussion of the issue pushes us to extreme positions, increasing dissension and making any possibility of progress toward a constructive solution less and less likely. It seems to me that this kind of media discussion should be labelled "harmful to your democratic health".

Back when I taught first year university writing courses, there was always a section on...