Opinion: Be afraid when police care more about politics than crime

“Whenever police devote any of their scarce resources to pursuing a political agenda, it’s an insult to victims of crime.”

Author: John Carpay

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

---

The politicization of the British police should serve as a stark warning to Canadians. What began with the monitoring and recording of “non-crime hate incidents” quickly led to thousands of British citizens being criminally charged. Their crimes included sharing opinions about topics like immigration and transgenderism. David Wootton was sentenced to two years in prison for a “grossly offensive” Halloween costume.

Police are in a unique position in our society. Police have the duty to fight crime by enforcing the Criminal Code as well as numerous non-criminal laws (e.g., traffic safety). Unlike teachers, social workers, religious leaders, psychologists, and counsellors, police have a legal right to use force to carry out their duties.

Police resources are limited. Across Canada, thousands of crimes ranging from property damage to murder remain unsolved. Many Canadians have been told by police that they must simply accept crimes like vandalism as par for the course. Police tell us they don’t have the resources to investigate or address supposedly “minor” crimes like the theft of heirloom jewellery from a home after a break-and-enter.

Whenever police devote any of their scarce resources to pursuing a political agenda, it’s an insult to victims of crime. That’s why police should spend 100% of their resources on fighting crime, and 0% of their resources on monitoring speech and enforcing “correct” opinions on political issues.

The recent conduct of the Hamilton Police Service, which has devoted resources to preventing a non-profit advocacy group from renting facilities to hold a conference, is reprehensible.

In mid-August, Hamilton’s mayor (and former Ontario NDP leader) Andrea Horwath violated the Charter freedoms of the Dominion Society by declaring that this non-profit advocacy group is not entitled to rent city-owned property. The predictable result of the mayor’s declaration was to force the Dominion Society to seek a private venue in which to hold its meeting. The Hamilton Police Service issued a political statement denouncing the Dominion Society as “divisive and exclusionary” and as negatively impacting “the sense of safety and belonging within our community.” The police even asked the public to “contact Hamilton Police at 905-546-4707 or email dmurphy@hamiltonpolice.ca” with information about any efforts the group might make to secure a venue.

The Dominion Society describes itself as “dedicated to promoting Canadian identity, heritage, and nationalism.” It advocates for remigration: sending immigrants back to their country of origin. Neither Hamilton’s mayor nor its police force has accused the group of being violent, criminal, or terrorist. It therefore has the same right as every other non-profit in Canada to operate peacefully within the law, and to advocate for its beliefs. Nobody is compelled to accept or agree with the group’s message. The Criminal Code prohibits advocating for violence and other criminal activity.

All Canadians, including police officers and elected officials, are free to agree or disagree with the beliefs of the Dominion Society. However, the police and elected officials are not free to use their government powers to impose or promote their own beliefs. In other words: a mayor has no right to deny the use of public facilities to a group with which she happens to disagree intensely. Police have no business using any of their taxpayer-funded resources to denounce a political group, or to ask members of the public to contact the police about activities that are entirely legal.

But doesn’t the Dominion Society advocate for policies with which most Canadians disagree? Roughly half of Canadians believe immigration levels are too high. It’s hard to say how many would support sending immigrants back to their country of origin, but presumably this would be a minority view.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that only 8% of Canadians support remigration, and 92% oppose remigration. Does having only 8% support for your opinion mean losing your right to rent government-owned facilities that are supposed to be available to all citizens? If yes, then no government facilities should be available for rental by the NDP, which garnered only 6.3% of the popular vote in Canada’s most recent federal election.

Almost 94% of Canadians rejected the NDP in 2025. Does that disqualify the NDP from enjoying its right – in a free and democratic society – to exercise its Charter freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly? What if 94% of Canadians disagree with my opinions, or yours, and find them “offensive” or even downright “evil”? Do we lose our basic rights as citizens for expressing unpopular opinions?

Canada is no longer a free country if mayors and police forces start treating unpopular opinions as though they are crimes. In a free country, citizens get to decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree with a group, party, ideology, or religion, without the “help” of government to enforce and impose the “correct” conclusion. In a free society, the government upholds the law equally for all citizens, including those who hold unpopular beliefs. Canada should not become like a fascist, theocratic, communist, or national socialist regime, in which the government decides which views are correct and who does (and does not) get to use public spaces.

This is why taxpayer-funded facilities like convention centres, and public spaces like sidewalks and city parks, are available to all citizens, regardless of their political beliefs. As individuals, politicians and policemen have every right to express their political opinions for and against various groups and causes. At the same time, Canada’s mayors, city councillors, and police forces have no right to treat government property as though it were their own private property, available only to the “good” people who have the “correct” political beliefs.

The Superior Court of Quebec recently ordered Quebec’s former tourism minister, Caroline Proulx, to pay $60,637 in general and punitive damages to Harvest Ministries International. Ms. Proulx had ordered the Centre des congrès de Québec to cancel its contract with Harvest Ministries to hold a Christian conference. The sole reason for cancelling the contract was Ms. Proulx vehemently disagreeing with the Christian group’s beliefs about abortion.

Hamilton’s police and mayor are behaving the same way as Ms. Proulx did, violating the Charter and abusing their power by imposing their politics on public facilities that are paid for by all taxpayers, not just taxpayers with the “correct” opinions. Free citizens should pay close attention to what went wrong in Britain. Canadians should oppose the sinister politicization of policing.