Freedom of speech and religion are under attack in Canada, specifically in Ontario.

Two stories from last week make my case.

Case one is that of Gregory Alan Elliott, who faces up to six months in jail for alleged criminal harassment via Twitter.

The complainants are two Toronto feminist-activists.

Police testified there’s no evidence Elliot threatened anyone.

He’s charged, essentially, with being unpleasant.

Elliott could be considered by many, were they to read some of his tweets, to be an obnoxious fellow with too much angry time on his hands.

But that shouldn’t be illegal.

Elliott, on learning from tweets the women wrote they were at a bar, (he wasn’t there) tweeted, “A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight,” calling them fat and hateful.

However, reading media reports of the trial might lead one to the conclusion the complainants weren’t much different.

One wanted to “sic the Internet’” on a person who created a video game that offended her.

One complainant testified she feared the Twitter exchange would escalate to a personal confrontation.

But it didn’t, and isn’t that what matters?

People going public with strong opinions must deal with the fact there may be strong public criticism of them, often unpleasant.

I defend the right of people to say what they will about me, so long as it is not slander or libel, neither of which Elliott is accused of, and which would have been a civil rather than criminal matter.

If Elliott is convicted — a judge is now deciding the issue — we may find ourselves living in a society where anyone claiming offence will get their day in court.

In my view, it’s frightening this case made it to court in the first place.

Case two is that of Trinity Western University and its proposed law school.

Karen Selick, litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, wrote for Troy Media in the Toronto Sun that, “TWU is a Christian university.

“It requires students sign a ‘community covenant’ in which they promise to conduct themselves according to Christian moral principles: no drunkenness, swearing or sex outside of traditional marriage, among other things.”

As Selick noted, “the big hullabaloo arises because ... gays can’t attend TWU’s law school either, unless they agree not to engage in gay sex throughout their tenure there”.

Whether one agrees with this is irrelevant.

A tolerant nation should have a justice system that protects the students’ rights of free speech, association and religion.

The Law Society went to court and won the right to not allow TWU law grads to practice law in Ontario, before any had attained a law degree, arguing the school discriminates against homosexuals.

But there’s no evidence TWUs grads would not practice according to the law.

The Law Society is pre-judging; therefore practicing prejudice against TWU.

As Selick writes, “Nobody has ever demonstrated graduates of TWU law school would discriminate against gay clients.”

TWU won a similar fight in 2001 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in its favour regarding its teachers’ college, so we’ll await future developments in this case.

But if the Law Society of Upper Canada and our courts can discriminate against one group, will they do so with others?

If we are to favour one tune over another by silencing some voices, the symphony of public discourse will never again sound sweet or complete.