The Canadian Supreme Court recently added being a drug addict to its list of human rights. They argued that drug addiction is merely a sickness rather than a moral failing and that drug addicts are sub-human (in that they lack willpower and the ability to make rational choices).
The left offered its usual hearty hear! hear! Facts have triumphed over ideology. In fact, it appears that ideology -- leftist ideology -- was slathered on rather thick in this ruling.
While no-one wishes drug addicts further harm neither do we wish to see their addiction trivialized as a mere illness nor supported in perpetuity by government as a fundamental human right. As for the Supremes pronouncements that InSite "saves lives" (which Barbara Kay challenges), I wonder if a study was done on the criminal harm committed by drug addicts being aided and abetted by InSite -- in which case, shouldn't the motto be "InSite causes harm"?
Barbara Kay offers her insights.