Freedoms

In my community right now there is general outrage over one particular man. His name is Paul Callow, otherwise know as the Balcony Rapist. He was tried and convicted for a series of violent sexual assaults in the mid 1980's. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and upon his release was a free man. The problem is, he's anything but free.

I'd like to state for the record before I go any further that I absolutely condemn this mans actions, and in no way do I condone any of his previous brutal criminal acts.

That being said, there is an uproar in the Lower Mainland that this man has chosen to reside within it's communities. He is currently prohibited from living in his home province of Ontario, and has sought to start a new life here. But upon learning of his intent, several communities in Greater Vancouver have rallied to drive him out. I have a huge problem with this.
This man has served his time, and is a free man, and in Canada that freedom includes,

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

This is in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a document that as a Canadian I am incredibly proud of, much as any American is rightly proud of their Bill of Rights. Both these documents enshrine the rights of the individual. Rights that we as individuals should be loathe to relinquish to any degree.

But that's exactly what some people in British Columbia are trying to do. If Paul Callow is the menace that he's described to be by the authorities, then they should have kept him in prison, and there are laws on the books that do just that. He wasn't however consider dangerous enough to seek such measures, and therefore was released after serving his entire term in prison.Now I'll admit to not being fluent with the law on this, but I believe that once you are released after serving your entire sentence, (and not on parole where conditions can be set restricting your freedoms), you are then accorded the same basic rights as any other human being.

We as a society cannot start moving back the goalposts for ex convicts in our society, it's discriminatory for one thing. But more importantly, in my opinion, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. If we're willing to take away a man's freedom based on his past actions, (which according to the laws of our society he's atoned for) what other freedoms are we willing to give away.

I know it sounds extreme, he's a convicted rapist, he's not a decent part of the community. But it doesn't matter. Our laws are blind to whether we find someone distasteful, and you cannot bring punitive measures against anyone for what they may do, In the States this is called prior restraint, and it's what George Orwell so eloquently called the Thought Police. No matter what this man, or anyone else, could possibly do in the future, they cannot, and must not be punished for it in the present.

I know that it's unpopular defending a rapist, but that's not what I'm defending. I'm defending the right for him to have a life to pursue.
Upholding the rights of children or the elderly, for example, is easy. But it's only in upholding the rights of the most unsavory of society that we can guarantee the rights of all.