The corrosion of Canadian society is becoming increasingly apparent as disparities in the application of law erode the principles of justice and equality that underpin national cohesion. A telling example is the cancellation of concerts by Sean Feucht—a Christian musician associated with conservative American politics—in cities like Vaughan and Montreal, contrasted with law enforcement’s seemingly permissive stance toward disruptive street protests held by certain Islamist groups. This uneven enforcement of the law not only undermines the rule of law but also stokes populist resentment, creating fertile ground for political polarization.

At the root of this problem lies the influence of critical social constructivism — often expressed through “woke” ideology — which prioritizes identity-based oppression narratives over impartial justice. This essay explores how the disparate treatment of public expression—illustrated by the Feucht case—threatens to fracture Canadian society and how ideological bias within institutions exacerbates the risk.

The Sean Feucht Concert Cancellations

Sean Feucht, known for his conservative Christian beliefs and affiliation with the MAGA movement, faced significant resistance when attempting to host concerts in Canada. In Vaughan, the city revoked his permit for a scheduled event at Dufferin District Park, citing concerns about “health and safety as well as community standards and well-being” (National Post). In Montreal, a church hosting Feucht was fined $2,500 over permit issues, and during the event, a smoke bomb was thrown into the venue—allegedly by Antifa-aligned protestors—yet no arrests followed (CBC News).

Other cancellations occurred in Quebec City and at a Parks Canada site in Nova Scotia, often citing vague concerns about “community standards” or “public safety,” despite no comparable crackdown on ideologically favored events (CBC News; Globe and Mail).

Unequal Application of Law

In contrast to the concert cancellations described earlier, public demonstrations involving Islamic street prayers have been met with a markedly different approach. For example, in March 2025, protesters blocked Toronto’s Yonge and Bloor intersection to perform anti-Israel Islamic prayers. Despite obstructing traffic and complaints from residents, Toronto Police took no enforcement action, citing a need to balance Charter rights and public safety (True North).

Similarly, in Montreal, Quebec Premier François Legault publicly criticized city police for allowing protesters to block streets during Islamic prayers, noting that no fines or charges had been issued across numerous demonstrations. Legault even considered invoking the notwithstanding clause to prohibit such practices outright (The CJN).

Adding to the perception of enforcement bias, journalists covering these protests reported being obstructed or threatened by police. In one instance, Montreal police allegedly told a journalist to “let them pray” while preventing him from filming, yet protesters causing the disruption faced no consequences (Rebel News).

This stark contrast — Christian concerts shut down, yet Islamic street blockages tolerated — reinforces public perception that Canadian authorities selectively apply the law based on ideological alignment.

Legal Framework: Religious Freedom and the Charter

Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has “freedom of conscience and religion.” This protection applies equally to Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and others. Section 15 of the Charter further guarantees “equality before and under the law” and the “right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”

However, Section 1 of the Charter allows for “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This is the legal mechanism by which governments or municipalities may argue that certain forms of expression or assembly—such as large concerts or disruptive protests—can be restricted in specific circumstances.

The problem arises when these limits appear to be enforced inconsistently, not based on objective criteria like safety or legality, but on the perceived ideological or religious affiliation of the participants. When secular authorities use Section 1 to suppress Christian gatherings while allowing disruptive Islamic demonstrations under Section 2(a), it creates the impression that some faiths are politically privileged while others are disfavored. This perception undermines public trust in the legal system and calls into question the neutrality of state institutions.

Societal Fracture

Unequal treatment before the law is a potent catalyst for societal division. When one segment of society perceives that its freedoms are systematically constrained while others are indulged, resentment grows—and with it, the risk of reactionary backlash.

Feucht himself characterized the cancellations as “Christian persecution,” accusing Canadian authorities of suppressing religious expression (CBC News). Whether one agrees or not, such rhetoric resonates with those who feel alienated by mainstream institutions. This kind of alienation feeds populist sentiment, erodes civic trust, and empowers more extreme political actors who promise to right perceived injustices.

Without a return to legal consistency, Canada risks a vicious cycle of grievance and counter-grievance, fueled not by reasoned discourse but by tribal loyalty and ideological recrimination.

The Ideological Engine: Critical Social Constructivism

The ideological root of this unequal application of law lies in critical social constructivism, particularly its contemporary “woke” form. Emerging from postmodern thought, this worldview holds that social reality is constructed through language and power relations, and that justice requires actively correcting historical imbalances.

In practice, this framework often leads to the privileging of marginalized identity groups while casting traditionally dominant groups—especially white, male, Christian, or conservative individuals—as inherently suspect. In the Feucht case, decision-makers may have acted out of a desire to affirm progressive social norms and suppress what they perceive as regressive or harmful speech.

This ideologically motivated asymmetry undermines the foundational liberal principle of equal treatment under the law. By replacing legal neutrality with identity-based adjudication, institutions risk becoming instruments of factionalism rather than guardians of justice.

Conclusion

If Canadian institutions continue to apply the law unevenly, motivated by ideological commitments rather than legal consistency, the resulting erosion of public trust will not remain confined to the political margins. It will spread. For a pluralistic society to function, citizens must believe that laws are applied fairly, regardless of ideology, religion, or identity.

The corrosion of this principle—whether in the name of safety, social progress, or cultural sensitivity—threatens the very cohesion it claims to protect. It is only through a recommitment to impartial justice that Canada can reverse its drift toward ideological tribalism and restore the unity that undergirds a truly free society.

 

Sources Cited