Freedom of expression, is supposed to be protected under Section 2 of the Charter of Rights but it has been on a wild journey in recent years, picked over and turned upside down by special interest groups, the courts and especially, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Government.  He is attempting to push through the controversial Bill C-10, An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act, which will certainly stifle free speech.

Freedom of expression has always been a fundamental right in a democracy, and is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948).  It is supposed to protect individuals from the tyrannies of the state and the majority. The free expression of ideas, especially those that are unpopular, is of fundamental importance. However, this right is being tampered with and, in some cases ignored in today’s confused world of special interest groups and the Liberal Government.

Well-funded LGBTQ Advocacy Groups

LGBTQ advocacy groups are the foremost special interest groups pushing against freedom of expression.

For example, in May 2021, the Halifax Pride organization boycotted the Halifax Public Library over its refusal to withdraw a book on transgenderism from its shelf.  This boycott is part of a disturbing pattern of LGBTQ organizations attempting to penalize library systems for their insistence on defending freedom of expression in regard to their reading material and provision of spaces for meetings and discussions.

In 2019, Meghan Murphy, a feminist writer, was invited to speak at an event hosted at the Toronto Public Library. A furious Pride Toronto organization published an open letter warning the library that there would “be consequences” if it allowed Ms. Murphy to speak on its premises. The library refused to back down, based on freedom of speech, to the credit of the Chief Librarian, Vickery Bowles.

Consequently, the speech took place despite a large demonstration at the library during Ms. Murphy’s appearance.  Fortunately however, despite the angry protests, Ms. Murphy completed her speech.

The LGBTQ activists believe that they have the right to police what views are allowed to publicly exist and to which ideas people may have access.  That is, instead of trying to persuade, by argument, others who are outside of their support base, the LGBTQ solution is to actively silence the voice of others.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Government and Bill C-10

The federal Liberal Government doesn’t seem to like free speech too much, since it is attempting to silence opposition whenever possible.

In November 2020, the Liberal Government introduced Bill C-10 which was to amend the 1991 Broadcasting Act to authorize the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to regulate online platforms, like Netflix, Disney Plus, and even the objectionable pornography site, Pornhub. C-10 was to protect Canadian content (CanCon) by empowering the CRTC to mandate preferential treatment in content, under the guise of protecting Canadian culture.  Canadian content is, in actual fact, a thinly-disguised employment system for persons in the Canadian entertainment industry.

Bill C-10 has received considerable criticism because it means that the internet would come under the control of the CRTC, which would have the power to define its scope.  Canadians would be able to communicate over the internet only with the permission of the state through decisions made by the nine Cabinet-appointed CRTC Commissioners.

Bill C-10 is clearly intended to allow speech control at the government’s discretion by monitoring an individual’s right to communicate freely on the internet.  Social media, such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter would be controlled by the CRTC, as well as all social media communications by ordinary citizens.

This is a clear attack on free speech. A later attempt by the government to cover up the significance of CRTC control over social media did not alleviate these concerns. The Conservative Party, alerted to the problem, raised objections and the debate went on and on.  To shut down debate, the Liberal Government joined forces with the Bloc Quebecois Party (BQ) to pass a motion to end the debate to only a further five hours. At that time the bill was at the Committee stage, where clause by clause amendments were being reviewed.  This was the first time in twenty years that a government imposed a time allocation on a Parliamentary Committee.  When the five-hour debate time expired, the Committee continued to vote on dozens of amendments that were not released to the public. The Speaker of the House of Commons, Anthony Rota, however, declared that these amendments were illegal since they were passed subsequent to the time allocation, and he voided the amendments.

Despite the many concerns regarding Bill C-10, the Liberals, NDP and BQ combined forces to pass C-10 in the House of Commons.

Fortunately, however, the Senate doesn’t appear to be a rubber-stamp for this highly controversial bill. It has refused to pass it without a careful review.  The delight of reviewing this bill awaits the Senate when Parliament resumes sitting in September.

The Bloc Quebecois (BQ)

Why did the BQ become such a willing partner with the Liberals to get Bill C-10 passed?  The reason is that the BQ Party, as usual, is only interested in Quebec and its art and entertainment industry, which was chomping at the bit to increase its potential via the CanCon content regulations.  In short, the BQ was indifferent to the long-range consequences of this bill in relation to freedom of speech.  Consequently, it was happy to move Bill C-10 along.

Hate Speech

Hate speech laws are the biggest threat to freedom of speech. The expression “hate speech” is vaguely worded and there is no universally understood definition or understanding of what constitutes such speech.

Hate speech is subjective, so much so that not even judges can agree on what it is.  For example, in 2013 in the case of Whatcott vs. Human Rights Commission of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that a pamphlet distributed by the defendant, Mr. William Whatcott, did not constitute hate speech.  Yet, the Supreme Court of Canada, based on exactly the same facts, unanimously agreed that Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlets did, in fact, constitute hate speech.  If the judges can’t decide on what constitutes hate speech, then how is the public supposed to be able to determine what it actually means?

Because there is no identifiable and agreed upon category of speech that can be definitively labeled as “hate speech”, this concept becomes a powerful tool in the hands of those, such as LGBTQ activists, who wish to censure unpopular opinion or silence political opposition by removing irritating voices that speak out against the orthodoxies of the day.

Fortunately, however, because of the subjective nature of hate speech in Canada, this offence has rarely been applied.  Hate speech is a criminal offence in accordance with Section 319 of the Criminal Code, but there have only been a handful of decisions dealing with this issue.

Further, when the government criminalizes speech, it becomes a slippery slope which ends up as censorship of speech. What may be a good idea to protect individuals can easily descend into a chaotic situation, where political and ideological viewpoints are prohibited and censored.

For example, Scotland passed a law criminalizing speech, which they called “malicious communication”.  Feminist Marion Millar was charged with a crime of malicious communication when she criticised transgenderism.  She had been a prominent critic of transgenderism, which she argued was a threat to feminist values. Because the criminal law was so rife with subjectivity, criminally charging her had the effect of actually silencing her, even though she was actually only making an opposing viewpoint.

Another example of the problem with hate speech occurred in May 2021 when the German government passed a new law making “hate motivated insult” a criminal offence. Nobody has a right not to be offended. That right doesn’t exist in any declaration of law anywhere.  All of us have been offended sometime in our lives by someone’s comments; that’s just life and it should not be a crime.  The German government’s attempt to include insults as a criminal offence will only lead to censorship and discrimination.

The essence of the problem is that the words ‘hatred’, ‘contempt’ and ‘malicious’ are ambiguous, emotionally charged terms capable of wide-ranging meanings, lacking a specific definition.  These terms end up being interpreted in accordance with the personal and political views of the judiciary, in whose lap the question inevitably falls.

What we know is that the entire notion of “hate speech” has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and ideas.  Once a group gets a taste of the ability to silence others, it creates an insatiable appetite to continue doing so.

Trudeau’s New Plans

On June 23, four days before the House of Commons broke for summer recess, the Liberal Government introduced C-36 a new bill tackling hate speech.  It plans to do so by amending the current hate law (Section 319 of the Criminal Code) and also by inserting a civil right to oppose hate in the federal Human Rights Act.

This bill is horrendous. If passed, there will be even more control of free speech in Canada.

REAL Women of Canada will be doing an analysis of this bill in a future issue of REALity.