No, he used social media and public meetings to campaign tirelessly for years against Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) education programs. According to his accusers, he referred to them as propaganda, equated non-binary gender identity with abuse, and suggested that educators were grooming students.
“That is a major clarification. Public officials — trustees, councillors, MLAs — cannot assume that statements made on Facebook, at rallies, or in interviews are legally insulated from employment consequences simply because they occur ‘off-duty.’”
There you have it.
Worse abuse was directed at Kirk’s widow, so it’s fair to conclude Neufeld and Oger live at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. Besides the stark contrast in their viewpoints, there is also the fact that those who share Oger’s perspective, while facing no institutional censure themselves, are far more successful at and interested in silencing their opponents than Neufeld and his supporters are.
That legislation, which contained some sensible proposals to protect children, also offered some alarming provisions that would have given people free rein to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission if they felt “harmed” by statements made by others, no matter how remote. The commission would have had the power to impose $20,000 fines—a mere pittance by British Columbia standards, it should be noted—while toughening Criminal Code hate speech laws by imposing life sentences and ordering house arrests in anticipation of what might be said.
Which is why I described the bill a year and a half ago as “a totalitarian, freedom of expression-suppressing wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Fortunately, that bill died at the same time as Trudeau’s political career and has yet to be revived by his successor. However, the government has tabled other legislation related to hate speech in this session of Parliament.
There has also been talk of legislation for protecting children and suggestions that youth under 14 not be allowed to register accounts and be active on Facebook. Australia imposed an age limit of 16 recently which caused Meta to delete more than half a million accounts. The devil is always in the details with this type of sticky wicket legislation but, given the Trudeau government’s more problematic instincts, legislation restricted to child protection would be a welcome replacement.
AI Minister Evan Solomon expressed disappointment that OpenAI had not arrived in his office bearing “new safety protocols” while Justice Minister Sean Fraser said that if OpenAI doesn’t want to further heighten its threshold, then the government will do it for them. And if it does that, more people who use social media tools will be getting visits from Canadian police who, it is worth noting, had recently returned firearms to the killer’s home having come to the same conclusion, it appears, as OpenAI.
Regardless, it sounds like the Online Harms Act’s dream of establishing a new Digital Safety Commission to supervise speech is creeping its way back onto the table. Many Canadians, given their political leanings, may like that idea.
Others will not, fearing the power of the state will expand beyond policing their actions and any direct threats to interpreting opinions as equally malevolent. Certainly, such appears to have been the case for the soon-to-be impoverished Neufeld, although he may find relief in an appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court. Or, he won’t.
Either way, the very threat of being dragged through the human rights process is now more than enough to throw a chill on speech for those, including politicians, who may find the public school system’s inclinations too radical for their liking.
Relativism will, again, have triumphed and free speech, the foundation of democracy, will be the victim.
