LOCKDOWN ON FREE SPEECH

Several months ago 15-year-old Grade 10 student Kieran King heard a
presentation about drug use in a high-school class. Thinking the
presentation poorly researched, King sought out information on the
Internet about the relative health risks of alcohol, marijuana and
tobacco. He told some of his fellow students marijuana appeared the
least hazardous of the three.

One student complained to the principal, who said if she heard him
discussing marijuana again she would call the police. King felt his
right to free speech was being impeded and with the help of the
Saskatchewan Marijuana Party, he organized a walkout at his school
last Tuesday. Just before the walkout was set to take place, the
principal ordered a school lockdown.

King and his brother left the school to join five other people
protesting outside. The RCMP was called in to regulate the protest of
seven people, King and his brother were suspended and the school
performed a threat assessment on King, which revealed he had mentioned
marijuana five or six times in the last year. King maintains he's
never even seen or smoked marijuana.

Because he was suspended, King was unable to write his exams and
received marks of zero. The drop in marks may hurt his chances of
getting a university scholarship.

The principal's overreaction to King's discussion of marijuana
violated his right to freedom of speech. Calling in the RCMP to manage
a peaceful walkout was unnecessary and ridiculous. The principal's
unwillingness to confront the issue in an academic setting is a weak
attempt to stamp out what could have been an informed, intellectual
and relevant discussion.

The school administrators' reaction is also counterintuitive to their
role as educators. They should be concerned with what students are
asking and take what their students say seriously.

King's punishment should fit his alleged crime. Being suspended for
protesting the school's crackdown on his right to freedom of speech
and being prevented from writing his exams as a result could
drastically impact his future.

Are we to understand that children aren't afforded the right to
discussion on topics of their choosing, particularly when they've
researched and can defend their arguments?

King wasn't armed or dangerous. He was talking.