
On a sweltering August day in London, Ontario, the heat outside mirrors the heated debates that dominate public discourse. Letters to the editor reveal a disturbing trend: instead of engaging ideas, critics launch personal attacks. In the global warming controversy, skeptics face accusations of being industry shills or non-scientists, while proponents escape scrutiny altogether. Consensus gets mistaken for science, yet history shows that truth often emerges from lone voices challenging the majority.
Marijuana use in Canada draws similar irrational responses. Statistics highlight higher consumption here than in decriminalized nations, yet the real issue remains one of principle. Government lacks the moral authority to punish peaceful choices that harm no one else. Criminalization fails to deter, while freedom respects individual sovereignty.
Photo radar and speed limits expose another myth. Evidence from jurisdictions shows that automated enforcement slows traffic but increases rear-end collisions and fatalities. Higher, naturally observed speeds reduce congestion and time on the road, lowering accident risk. Germany’s Autobahn demonstrates that well-engineered highways with unrestricted sections achieve superior safety records.
Fears of World War III and debates over the monarchy remind listeners that freedom requires eternal vigilance. Personal liberty erodes gradually, often under the guise of noble causes. Defending it demands reason, not emotion or consensus—and that defense is just right.



