Lawyer asks the Dunn to reconsider Hillary's suspension

The following letter was sent today to Cheryl Smithers, the principal at Sir James Dunn Collegiate and Vocational School, by Jeffrey Broadbent of the law firm Feifel Broadbent Gareau.

Responding to a story carried yesterday on SooToday.com, Broadbent calls on Smithers and the Algoma District School Board to reconsider the suspension of student Hillary Horsford.

To read SooToday.com's earlier coverage of this story, please click here.

********************** Ms. Cheryl Smithers Principal Sir James Dunn Secondary School 1601 Wellington Street East Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Dear Ms. Smithers;

According to a report in Sootoday on March 6, 2005, "most of the [morning] announcements aren't signed" (pre approved by administration) before delivery at Sir James Dunn Secondary School.

It was also reported that a student, Ms. Hilary Horsford inquired very briefly in her morning announcement "Did you know 60 percent of Saultites are against same-sex marriage?" (a suspicious statistic in any event, generated by a biased organization with a contrary position in the issue) and "Do you want to marry the person you love? Well, so do they, so come out and picket against the picketers."

Ostensibly, because this message was not pre-approved, the paper statement was snatched from her hand by school administration immediately after delivery and later in the day, Hilary was suspended from school for three days.

With the greatest respect, one cannot help but conclude that this suspension is grossly disproportionate in the circumstances of this case.

In fact, I am personally aware of much more serious offences at Sir James Dunn attracting precisely the sanction of three days suspension.

Thus, if proportionate discipline is the rule (as it should be), then three days in this instance is far in excess of what is appropriate.

To be sure, if it is so that other messages are routinely delivered without pre-approval and with no such consequence, it is clear then that the penalty in this case is an implicit condemnation of the message itself.

In that regard, Ms. Horsford finds herself in the compelling and honoured company of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada, several provincial Courts of Appeal and several Superior Courts throughout this great country.

She is in fact espousing the values and virtues of those important instruments and foundations of our democratic society.

Indeed, she is simply stating in her own words that which is now well recognized as an inalienable right.

The fact of the matter is that the majority opinion is not always the correct opinion when it comes to fundamental human rights, and the "tyranny of the majority" must be reigned in by protective institutions such as the courts and the Charter.

It is evident that Hilary appreciated this, and anticipated that though in principle her position is absolutely correct, the message might not be approved. In my respectful opinion, this young woman demonstrated courage of conviction in delivering what might be an unpopular, though legally correct message.

She should be applauded for her courage of conviction and doubly so given the correctness of same.

In fact, my impression is that the message is widely well received by the students at Sir James Dunn and frankly seems to be consistent with the views of the new wiser generation.

The tolerance and virtue which this message embodies does not deserve the sanctions attracted in this case.

One can only query whether the same sanction would have been imposed had the message been the contrary position; a position not supported by the Charter and dismissed absolutely by the Courts.

In short, it is disappointing the administration has sanctioned so disproportionately a message which is already accepted as a fundamental human right by higher and thankfully more powerful institutions.

Even taking the message out of consideration, Hilary should be sanctioned no more than those others who’ve delivered unapproved messages; which is to say not at all in the manner of three days suspension.

This was not a silly, frivolous prank, but a thoughtful and profoundly important message.

As a parent of another student at Sir James Dunn, I do not at all appreciate the messages that this sanction itself sends to other students and am in fact extremely in opposition with same.

It is strikingly disproportionate and fundamentally wrong. Indeed, what message are we sending by giving such tacit deferential treatment to such an untenable perspective?

We might as well include creationism in biology, ESP in physics, alchemy in chemistry and the "lost" city of Atlantis in geography or history, flat earth theory and so on.

I truly hope the suspension will be reconsidered and corrected and balance restored.

Respectfully yours,

Jeffrey D. Broadbent Barrister and Solicitor cc: Hilary Horsford, The Sault Star, Superintendent of Education, Algoma District School Board, Mr. Dave Helwig **********************