Canada is steadily transforming free expression from a right into a privilege — one that regulators, tribunals, and government officials can withdraw whenever they decide another interest matters more
Great summary. I'm a proud Canadian living in the US and have long admired the freedom-striving culture of those truly devoted to the 1A. You are on spot-on in your analysis of Canada in that it has similar aspirations, but falls short on execution. The tyranny of good intentions can lead to rationalizations that may offer some catharsis in the short-term to troubling circumstances, but at great long-term cost. In addition to the CCLA, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is also worthy of support. They are the closest analogue to FIRE that I have found in Canada. https://theccf.ca/
I legit thought while I was reading: “Why isn’t the CCF mentioned? They’re truly non partisan, in a way the CCLA doesn’t quite manage.” Then I came to the comments to mention them, and you had done that already. Which is fantastic.
Great write-up by the OP of the situation up here in Canada! Pretty sad state of affairs in this regard.
No we just don’t have those aspirations at all. This is obscene. If we do have those aspirations then we are ignorant and severely intellectually deficient.
The true north strong and free is now a CCP colony. Democrats have the same approach to free speech as Canada and Europe. America is the last bulwark left against commissar tyranny.
I'd also add that there is another danger of the idea of balancing speech against dignity interests -- it tends to result in a genuine expansion in what people feel to be assaults against their dignity.
The second some other group gets legal protection against some language being used against them the choice of people to use that language against you will feel like it is driving home your inferior status and lack of legal protection. Worse, we tend to believe what we would like to believe and the problem is that by believing some form of expression is deeply offensive to us we can make it so.
"50-meter 'bubble zone' (that’s about 164 freedom feet) around schools, hospitals, places of worship, daycares, and care homes."
Does this apply if activist students decide to leave class and march around campus to "free Palestine" or promote the cause du jour? Will they be arrested, or does this only apply to people whose speech the Canadian government doesn't like?
No it does. We definitely have a two tier enforcement and justice system. It’s mighty uncomfortable up here. Alberta separation is maybe our last scramble to keep our quickly disappearing freedoms
Alberta Separation is a terrible idea. The system we have needs to be fixed, not rejected. Separation would create as many problems as it purports to solve.
A surprising number of Europeans will tell Americans (in hushed tones) that they appreciate our ongoing willingness to flip the bird against those in power when called for.
Yeah, if I could afford to leave Canada, I definitely would although I'm not sure where I will go exactly. It would be hard to move to the US right now. I don't like what my government is currently doing.
Is this the same Canada that fought alongside its Allies in 2 World Wars and with the convoys out of Halifax kept the UK fed when it stood alone in 1940?
When the discussed the charter on human rights in the UN, the question of freedom of speech was one point the countries couldn't agree on.
Western countries wanted no restrictions, while the socialist countries and authoritarian countries did. Eventually they left the issue outside of the human rights convention. It was to be decided on in the next charter: ICCPR.
Again, the socialist countries and authoritarian states wanted to be able to restrict speech that's racist, hateful, etc, while western countries worried what it might lead to. Western countries were however in the minority.
The US never fully signed the ICCPR.
What I consider interesting is that authoritarian states are happy to impose every restriction on freedom of speech, whether it is hate speech or racism. Probably because every excuse to put people in jail or restrict political freedom is good to them.
Western countries were surprisingly hesitant. Britain was strongly against hate speech laws in the 1950s.
Now we can see the consequences. Once we start to restrict some hate speech, pretty soon the definition of "hate" expands.
Worth noting: legal concepts refining over time isn't the same as freedom eroding. Definitions evolve in every area of law. The sharper question might be whether incarceration rates for restricted speech are actually rising, and, if so, what's driving that: more speech online? Different reporting? Or increased restriction?
For now the extrapolations may just follow the belief.
But it looks (from this article) like Canada has increased the scope of hate speech. I know it has in the UK, and I know that EU laws specifically require member countries to do that.
I also am well familiar with the law in Sweden. Hate speech was made illegal ca 1948, to prevent a certain Einar Åberg from selling his anti-Semitic books around the world. Yet until we joined the EU, the law was mainly restricted to speech that was likely to cause injury. Waving a Nazi flag was in itself not illegal. Now it is, just as in every other EU country.
It is also illegal to say "gays are p$$$verts", "Muslims are v###lent", "sieg heil" , etc etc. And it keeps increasing. Last year the made it illegal to question the Holocaust.
Fair points, Fredrik. But I'd push back on the implied trend (the main point). The article stacks recent cases to suggest Canada is drifting toward less freedom, and I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion. Some of the "expanding scope" is genuine elaboration for legal clarity (C-9 narrows procedural barriers, but the underlying "willful promotion of hatred" threshold, requiring extreme vilification, hasn't loosened), and some change is a response to a real, measured, and specific change in hate crimes and targeted harassment. That's not a expansion aimed at ordinary opinion.
The Peterson case is the clearest example of overreach in the piece, but still does not support the point made. It's a professional regulator disciplining a member for public conduct. That's not new, and it's not the same as the state criminalizing speech. Regulatory bodies policing member conduct in grey areas long predates any of this legislation. Treating one professional-discipline case, a large tribunal award, and an arrest for trespassing as evidence of a national trend toward criminalizing opinion overstates what's actually been shown. And it is contrary empirical analsysis that is available. The bigger threat to democratic freedoms in Canada has been more convincingly shown to be media concentration.
Canada, along with the UK, Australia and New Zealand, are the canary in the coalmine for the outcome in the USA if Democrats have their way. The Biden administration was a mere warmup to our profound loss of liberty should the democrats gain control of the government
Great article but the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has been a much better defender of and advocate for free speech in Canada than has the milquetoast CCLA in these dark recent times, and JCCF deserve some credit in an important long form piece like this.
I'm glad Canada still has a civil liberties union that defends Free Speech. In the US our former civil liberties union stopped defending speech it disagreed with a while ago.
Great summary. I'm a proud Canadian living in the US and have long admired the freedom-striving culture of those truly devoted to the 1A. You are on spot-on in your analysis of Canada in that it has similar aspirations, but falls short on execution. The tyranny of good intentions can lead to rationalizations that may offer some catharsis in the short-term to troubling circumstances, but at great long-term cost. In addition to the CCLA, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is also worthy of support. They are the closest analogue to FIRE that I have found in Canada. https://theccf.ca/
I legit thought while I was reading: “Why isn’t the CCF mentioned? They’re truly non partisan, in a way the CCLA doesn’t quite manage.” Then I came to the comments to mention them, and you had done that already. Which is fantastic.
Great write-up by the OP of the situation up here in Canada! Pretty sad state of affairs in this regard.
No we just don’t have those aspirations at all. This is obscene. If we do have those aspirations then we are ignorant and severely intellectually deficient.
The true north strong and free is now a CCP colony. Democrats have the same approach to free speech as Canada and Europe. America is the last bulwark left against commissar tyranny.
I'd also add that there is another danger of the idea of balancing speech against dignity interests -- it tends to result in a genuine expansion in what people feel to be assaults against their dignity.
The second some other group gets legal protection against some language being used against them the choice of people to use that language against you will feel like it is driving home your inferior status and lack of legal protection. Worse, we tend to believe what we would like to believe and the problem is that by believing some form of expression is deeply offensive to us we can make it so.
"50-meter 'bubble zone' (that’s about 164 freedom feet) around schools, hospitals, places of worship, daycares, and care homes."
Does this apply if activist students decide to leave class and march around campus to "free Palestine" or promote the cause du jour? Will they be arrested, or does this only apply to people whose speech the Canadian government doesn't like?
No it does. We definitely have a two tier enforcement and justice system. It’s mighty uncomfortable up here. Alberta separation is maybe our last scramble to keep our quickly disappearing freedoms
Alberta Separation is a terrible idea. The system we have needs to be fixed, not rejected. Separation would create as many problems as it purports to solve.
As a Canadian, I appreciate you sharing this.
As a Canadian, I thank you for covering this.
We are all still free to tell any lie we want, as long as the lie benefits the government.
I put a 🇺🇸 patch on my backpack for when I’m backpacking through other countries so people don’t mistake me for Canadian.
A surprising number of Europeans will tell Americans (in hushed tones) that they appreciate our ongoing willingness to flip the bird against those in power when called for.
Yeah, if I could afford to leave Canada, I definitely would although I'm not sure where I will go exactly. It would be hard to move to the US right now. I don't like what my government is currently doing.
In terms of freedom, Canada seems to be heading towards a Hemingway bankruptcy--first gradually, then suddenly.
Is this the same Canada that fought alongside its Allies in 2 World Wars and with the convoys out of Halifax kept the UK fed when it stood alone in 1940?
When the discussed the charter on human rights in the UN, the question of freedom of speech was one point the countries couldn't agree on.
Western countries wanted no restrictions, while the socialist countries and authoritarian countries did. Eventually they left the issue outside of the human rights convention. It was to be decided on in the next charter: ICCPR.
Again, the socialist countries and authoritarian states wanted to be able to restrict speech that's racist, hateful, etc, while western countries worried what it might lead to. Western countries were however in the minority.
The US never fully signed the ICCPR.
What I consider interesting is that authoritarian states are happy to impose every restriction on freedom of speech, whether it is hate speech or racism. Probably because every excuse to put people in jail or restrict political freedom is good to them.
Western countries were surprisingly hesitant. Britain was strongly against hate speech laws in the 1950s.
Now we can see the consequences. Once we start to restrict some hate speech, pretty soon the definition of "hate" expands.
Worth noting: legal concepts refining over time isn't the same as freedom eroding. Definitions evolve in every area of law. The sharper question might be whether incarceration rates for restricted speech are actually rising, and, if so, what's driving that: more speech online? Different reporting? Or increased restriction?
For now the extrapolations may just follow the belief.
But it looks (from this article) like Canada has increased the scope of hate speech. I know it has in the UK, and I know that EU laws specifically require member countries to do that.
I also am well familiar with the law in Sweden. Hate speech was made illegal ca 1948, to prevent a certain Einar Åberg from selling his anti-Semitic books around the world. Yet until we joined the EU, the law was mainly restricted to speech that was likely to cause injury. Waving a Nazi flag was in itself not illegal. Now it is, just as in every other EU country.
It is also illegal to say "gays are p$$$verts", "Muslims are v###lent", "sieg heil" , etc etc. And it keeps increasing. Last year the made it illegal to question the Holocaust.
Fair points, Fredrik. But I'd push back on the implied trend (the main point). The article stacks recent cases to suggest Canada is drifting toward less freedom, and I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion. Some of the "expanding scope" is genuine elaboration for legal clarity (C-9 narrows procedural barriers, but the underlying "willful promotion of hatred" threshold, requiring extreme vilification, hasn't loosened), and some change is a response to a real, measured, and specific change in hate crimes and targeted harassment. That's not a expansion aimed at ordinary opinion.
The Peterson case is the clearest example of overreach in the piece, but still does not support the point made. It's a professional regulator disciplining a member for public conduct. That's not new, and it's not the same as the state criminalizing speech. Regulatory bodies policing member conduct in grey areas long predates any of this legislation. Treating one professional-discipline case, a large tribunal award, and an arrest for trespassing as evidence of a national trend toward criminalizing opinion overstates what's actually been shown. And it is contrary empirical analsysis that is available. The bigger threat to democratic freedoms in Canada has been more convincingly shown to be media concentration.
Canada, along with the UK, Australia and New Zealand, are the canary in the coalmine for the outcome in the USA if Democrats have their way. The Biden administration was a mere warmup to our profound loss of liberty should the democrats gain control of the government
How can we in the US be allied to a country whose view of freedom of speech echoes that of Russia and China? We can’t.
Great article but the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has been a much better defender of and advocate for free speech in Canada than has the milquetoast CCLA in these dark recent times, and JCCF deserve some credit in an important long form piece like this.
I'm glad Canada still has a civil liberties union that defends Free Speech. In the US our former civil liberties union stopped defending speech it disagreed with a while ago.
Let's just say the ACLU got FIREd.