You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Compelled speech’ tag.
On December 3, 2025, Calgary pastor Derek Reimer was arrested for breaching the conditions of his conditional sentence order after refusing to write a court-mandated letter of apology to a public library manager and members of the LGBTQ+ community. The apology stemmed from his earlier conviction for criminal harassment related to protests against Drag Queen Story Hour events at Calgary libraries in 2023, where he had confronted organizers and posted videos online.
Reimer, citing his sincerely held religious beliefs, argued that complying would constitute compelled speech in violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, the court deemed his refusal a breach, leading to his immediate detention.At a bail hearing on December 5-6, 2025, no decision was reached on Reimer’s release, and he remains in custody awaiting a further hearing on Tuesday, December 9. The case highlights the extraordinary nature of the original sentencing requirement: court-ordered apologies are rare in Canadian criminal law and typically reserved for restorative justice or defamation contexts, not as a tool to enforce ideological conformity. By jailing a citizen for refusing to express remorse that contradicts his conscience, the justice system effectively punishes thought and belief rather than solely actions, raising serious concerns about state overreach.
This incident exemplifies growing authoritarian tendencies in Canada’s legal approach to dissent on cultural issues, where protections for freedom of expression and religion appear subordinated to enforcing compliance with progressive orthodoxies. Forcing individuals to voice insincere apologies—or face imprisonment—echoes compelled speech regimes in totalitarian systems, undermining the Charter’s guarantees and signaling that the government views certain religious convictions as incompatible with public order. As of December 6, 2025, Reimer’s continued detention without resolution further illustrates how such measures can be used to silence opposition through prolonged pre-trial incarceration.
Here are some reliable sources for readers seeking more details on Pastor Derek Reimer’s case, including the original protests, the court-ordered apology, his December 3, 2025 arrest for non-compliance, and the ongoing bail proceedings as of December 6, 2025:
- Original X post highlighting the case: https://x.com/RealMattA_/status/1997166177433321898 (Quotes journalist Chris Dacey’s update on the bail hearing delay.)
- Video update from the December 6 bail hearing (posted by
@chrisdacey
): https://x.com/chrisdacey/status/1997152423396204956 (Confirms no bail decision was reached and Reimer remains in custody until December 9.)
- Western Standard – Arrest coverage: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/watch-calgary-pastor-arrested-after-refusing-to-apologize-to-librarian/69520 (Includes details on the breach and compelled speech concerns.)
- Rebel News – Breaking arrest report: https://www.rebelnews.com/derek_reimer_arrested_after_refusing_court_ordered_apology (Features video of the arrest and background on the conditional sentence order.)
- Caldron Pool – Analysis of compelled speech: https://caldronpool.com/compelled-speech-canadian-pastor-arrested-for-refusing-to-issue-court-ordered-apology/ (Discusses Charter violations and Reimer’s religious objections.)
- LifeSiteNews – Recent developments: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-pastor-arrested-for-refusing-to-write-apology-to-librarian-who-hosted-drag-queen-story-hour/ (Covers the arrest and broader context of protests against drag events for children.)
The case of Catherine Kronas, an elected parent member of the school council at Ancaster High Secondary School within the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) in Ontario, Canada, exemplifies a significant conflict between institutional policies promoting cultural sensitivity and the protection of individual rights to free expression. On April 9, 2025, during a school council meeting, Kronas respectfully objected to the practice of land acknowledgements—formal statements recognizing Indigenous peoples as the original stewards of the land—asserting that they constitute compelled speech and are politically controversial. She requested that her objection be recorded in the meeting minutes, causing no disruption. Nevertheless, on May 22, 2025, the HWDSB suspended her from her council role, citing allegations of causing harm and violating the board’s Code of Conduct policy. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) responded by issuing a legal warning letter, arguing that the suspension infringes on Kronas’s freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This situation underscores the broader tension between fostering inclusivity through practices like land acknowledgements and safeguarding individual rights to dissent, raising critical questions about free speech and compelled speech in educational settings.
Free speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies, ensuring that individuals can express diverse viewpoints without fear of censorship or retaliation. In educational contexts, this principle is paramount, as schools are environments where students, parents, and educators should engage in open dialogue to foster critical thinking and intellectual growth. The suspension of Kronas for voicing a dissenting opinion on land acknowledgements risks stifling such discourse, creating an atmosphere where conformity is prioritized over debate. This not only undermines the educational mission but also sets a concerning precedent for how dissent is managed in democratic institutions. Protecting free speech in schools allows for the exploration of controversial issues, encouraging students and community members to develop informed perspectives through reasoned discussion. The Kronas case illustrates the importance of maintaining an environment where differing viewpoints can be expressed without penalty, ensuring that educational institutions remain spaces for intellectual freedom and democratic engagement.
Compelled speech, where individuals are required to express or endorse statements contrary to their beliefs, poses significant risks to personal autonomy and freedom of expression. In Kronas’s case, the HWDSB’s expectation that council members participate in or refrain from objecting to land acknowledgements effectively compelled her to align with a statement she viewed as political and divisive. Her suspension for merely requesting that her objection be noted demonstrates how institutional mandates can penalize dissent, potentially violating Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Such actions may create a chilling effect, where individuals self-censor to avoid repercussions, eroding the foundation of free expression. The JCCF’s legal challenge highlights the lack of procedural fairness, as Kronas was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. While land acknowledgements aim to honor Indigenous histories, their mandatory imposition in public settings must be balanced against the rights of individuals to dissent. The Kronas case serves as a critical reminder of the need to protect free speech and resist compelled speech to maintain a free and open society.
Key Citations
- School board reaffirms suspension of parent opposing land acknowledgement
- Parent suspended for objecting to land acknowledgement; legal warning sent
- Canadian school board suspends parent for opposing Indigenous land claims
- Legal warning sent to Ontario school board for suspending elected school council member
- Legal warning sent to Ontario school board for suspending elected school council member
- Compelled Expression
- Compelled Speech on Canadian Campuses
- Free Speech
- Compelled Speech
- Section 2(b) – Freedom of expression
- Indigenous Education
- Indigenous Education Policy
- What’s wrong with land acknowledgments, and how to make them better
- Land Acknowledgement
Having recently gotten into a discussion about the misnamed “Gender Affirming Care” with some of my acquaintances we broached many contentious topics but one point that stuck out was when we got into pronoun territory.
My interlocutor was brought up the idea that the shortening of names – like Stan for Stanley – was a preference and that people were just being polite by referring to the individual as they would like to be referred to.
I stumbled a bit on proposing a counter argument for this point – in hindsight it is fairly straightforward to construct a response.
If a person insists on calling a self proclaimed “Stan”, “Stanley” it might indeed be considered a bit offensive. So how is this different that using she/her pronouns for a male who is under the false notion that he is female?
Well, Stan and Stanly are both terms that are technically correct for the person in question. Is it inconsiderate to ignore their wishes, yes certainly, but here in this free society we don’t have to associate with people who we judge are inconsiderate toward us.
The male expecting people to use “she/her” when to referring to him is a completely different case. Pronouns and preferred names are not in the same category of linguistic use. In English pronouns are sexed, thus males are attributed he/him and females are attributed she/her.
If you hold a set of beliefs that do not comport with reality – that is a male believing that he is somehow a woman (adult human female) – that is perfectly fine. Your personal belief about your reality are of no concern to anyone else in society.
The expectation though of people outside your gender delusion to play along with and be party to your departure from the material reality we all share is not acceptable, especially if you are a person that sees the harm Gender Ideology does to women and society.
Thus, the argument of using a preferred name vs. a pronoun is distinctly a false equivalence as in the first case two real descriptors that accurately represent reality are being offered. In the second case using the “wrong” pronouns is a decision to comport with reality or the decision to ignore the evidence your senses are reporting and submit to someone else’s interpretation of reality – no one is obliged to do so.
Both cases associated with someone is who you perceive to be offensive is not usually not a mandatory experience. Occasionally being offended in society is a part of life and one must learn to deal with it.
Compelling the speech of others is a distinctly authoritarian notion and should not be encouraged in a society that values freedom of thought and expression.
This was the result of a male student ‘self-id’ing into a female sport locker room. The female child that complained about having a male perv on them and her Father were both subject to censure and school disciplinary procedures, including attempting to compel their speech and actions. Thankfully that bullshit was stopped dead in its tracks.
I am the mother of the trans student in question and my [son] daughter did not make any comments at all. The entire team can back this up, other than the girl that made up the story for attention.
This is slander, defamation of character, and we have secured a lawyer….
Travis responded:
I am the father of the girl you claim “made up a story for attention.” The truth is your son watched my daughter and multiple other girls change in the locker room. While he got a free show they got violated.
You think this is fine and dandy. I wonder how you would feel if I watched you undress?
For that transgression school officials demanded that Travis apologize, and ended a contract it had with him as coach of the school’s girls’ soccer team.
Claimed the ADF in its lawsuit:
The First Amendment does not countenance this kind of government censorship, where a public school mandates that students and coaches refrain from expressing any view that offends its prescribed views, particularly on an issue as important as whether the school should permit males identifying as girls to undress, shower and change in the girls’ locker room.
Travis and Blake Allen were entitled to express their views on that issue and, in expressing those views, to support them with what is a biological fact — that a biological teenage male is, indeed, a male.
This case presents a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and Plaintiffs are entitled to all appropriate relief.
ADF summed up their argument:
By requiring Blake Allen to take part in a “restorative circle” to help her “understand the rights of students to access public accommodations … in a manner consistent with their gender identity” and “submit a reflective essay” that meets Defendants’ own standards in order to avoid additional out-of-school suspension, Defendants are seeking to compel her to speak in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
By requiring Travis Allen to issue a public apology for his September 29 Facebook post as a condition to be reinstated as a coach, Defendants are seeking to compel him to speak in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The state of Vermont has created this problem by its willingness to buy into the current fad of “transgenderism.” It states that
- All students have a gender identity which is self-determined;
- All persons, including students attending school, have privacy rights.
Vermont defines “transgender” as “an individual whose gender identity or gender expression is different from the individual’s assigned sex at birth.”
Conflict is therefore inevitable, yet it never existed when the Genesis account was considered the basis of all law. Genesis 1:27, if Vermont state officials would follow it, eliminates the conflict: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.”
After reviewing the lawsuit, school officials backed down. Said ADF: “Shortly after filing the lawsuit, counsel for the school officials notified ADF attorneys that the superintendent was rescinding the disciplinary actions.”
Score one for the good guys.
Dear teacher, principal, music director, barista, checkout clerk, and bookseller:
I think I know how this happened: you probably had a DEI workshop or a colleague or a woke friend or a passionate niece tell you this was a nice thing to do. I even had one of you tell me directly that “this is a small way to create an inclusive and nourishing community by affirming and supporting students of all genders.” So you put on your pronoun badge and added she/her at the end of your email signature. There, you thought, I’m a kind person.
And I sincerely believe that your intentions are good. Somewhere along the line you heard that trans kids commit suicide at high rates. You saw a TV show where a trans character or actor was tragically heroic, misunderstood, and noble. You saw a soft-focus ad campaign about a little trans girl who just wants to play sports with the girls. Aw. You’ve probably got a student, family member, or neighbor kid who declared they are trans and is screaming things like “trans rights are human rights” and clearly distressed. Seriously, if adding a pronoun statement to your email signature somehow helps those unhappy kids, what kind of cruel brute wouldn’t do it?
So I get it; you think your pronoun introduction, email signature, video conference name, and badge signal that you’re nice and inclusive. But actually, they show that you’re okay with sterilizing autistic kids.
What? Huh? How?
I’ll take this slowly, so pay attention. When you add a pronoun declaration, you are saying that:
1) Despite any scientific evidence, I believe in the idea of gender identities. There is no science that shows that people have an innate sense or feeling of “gender.” No brain scan. No blood test. Of course not: “Gender identity” is a feeling, an idea about whether and how much you feel like a female or a male. [Do you feel like a person with AB blood? Or a person who is 5’ 9”? No – you just are.] But yes, I think people feel female or male or neither. Or both.
2) Some people have gender feelings that are different from their physical bodies, and that those gender feelings trump their bodies’ physical sex. How they feel matters more than their body – and society should label/categorize them as that feeling desires. No longer do pronouns refer to someone’s actual sexed body (an observable and incontrovertible fact in 99.999% of cases and testable in the other ones), but to how they feel (an unobserved and unmeasurable idea). I’m okay with changing the meanings of pronouns – because feelings are more important than reality.
[Note: realistically, calling someone by the opposite gender pronoun (or they/them) doesn’t actually move them into the social category of the opposite sex or some third sex—not for any useful purposes like friendships, dating, athletics, or sexual partners. It just puts them into the category of “too sensitive to face reality / treat with kid gloves / they are mentally unstable and possibly suicidal / they might have a weird kink fetish / they’re probably super-obsessed about one aspect of their life and kinda boring and weird.” Believe me, outside of high school and the anthropology and gender studies departments, no one sees an opposite sex/they/them pronoun signature line and thinks “Oooh—now that person is magical and extra interesting. I can’t wait to get to know/hire/date that person.” We think “next.”]
3) If feelings matter more than facts, then transforming the sexed body to better match the gender feelings makes the best sense. Taking puberty-blockers and/or cross-sex hormones or undergoing surgery to stimulate the appearance of sex characteristics like breasts or facial hair or penises makes sense. Trying to question, alter, or evolve feelings or promote self-acceptance of the physical body isn’t worth trying or exploring.
4) Even though transitioning the body from one sex to the other isn’t actually possible, I’m okay with people doing that. No amount of cross-sex hormones will transform a penis into a vagina, nor vice versa. Surgery can remove breasts, labia, clitorises, vaginas, ovaries, fallopian tubes, uteruses, penises, scrotums, and testes. Plastic surgery can try to fashion pseudo penises from chunks of thigh or arm tissue, or pseudo vaginas from inverted penises or lengths of colon, but these are not functional organs. Even the most sophisticated surgeries and drugs cannot transform the DNA coded into every cell of your body. Sex can never change, but I’m okay with acting on fantasies and feelings.
5) Even though attempting to transition the body from one sex to the other isn’t healthy and increases suicide, I’m okay with people doing that. Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and surgeries are bad for bodies. Really bad. Brain polyps, anorgasmia, infertility, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, cardiac damage, diabetes, infections, death. Scientists and doctors know these approaches are bad. Sometimes, a patient reports the results were worth it, but we know that transitioning actually increases rates of suicide. I’m okay with those negative consequences, because feelings are more important than reality.
6) Despite the fact that historically, most of children (typically boys) with gender dysphoria outgrew it and became gay or bisexual men, I think we should re-enforce these young boys’ false belief they are actually girls by using preferred pronouns. Remember, feelings are more important than reality. Reinforcing this idea that a boy is a girl can lead them to social and medical transition, but that’s not my problem. I’m okay with sterilizing gay boys.
7) Despite the fact that the present wave of teenagers with gender dysphoria has disproportionately high rates of social isolation, anxiety, depression, ADHD, and autism, I’m okay with permanently damaging and sterilizing them, too. Even though typical teenagers can’t be trusted to vote, smoke cigarettes, or drive a rental car, I believe these socially isolated, anxious, depressed, ADHD and autistic teenagers are somehow extra-ordinarily mature, and I’m okay with them making these sorts of life-altering decisions based on their feelings. Because feelings trump the body.
8) So yes, I’m totally okay with the sterilization of autistic children—really, any kind of people at all. Giving people time to mature and grow just isn’t wise, right? Since we all know feelings trump reality. Go ahead. No skin off my nose.
Well, thanks for clarifying where you stand. You’re so kind.
There is nothing kind about affirming the magical pronouns of others. Reinforcing the detachment from reality in others is quite the opposite of being kind.
There is nothing kind about endorsing the idea that if a man calls himself, by ‘she/her’ pronouns then suddenly he becomes an adult human female. This is not possible as human beings, in the vast majority, grow down one of two developmental pathways. Either you produce (or have the potential to) large immobile gametes, or you produce small mobile gametes and the related bio-mechanical infrastructure necessary to potentially pass your genetic material on to the next generation – also known as being female or male.
Sex is immutable in the human species and does not change regardless of how strongly you happen to believe in gender identity magic.
So, by not using the wrong pronouns for males and females you make the statement that you have a commitment to comporting with the reality we all share and maintaining said reality’s grounded attachment to the world of fact.
It is okay to say, “No, I don’t believe in the pronoun rules associated with gender identity” (and the larger notion of trans gender ideology). It is okay to reject the delusional notion that men – because they feel like women – actually are women. You are rejecting the gender-orthodoxy that is profoundly damaging to female safety, rights, and spaces within society. In time, your stance will be applauded as it comports with reality we share.
The demands of people for you as a third party to partake in their gender-fantasy is not a reasonable one.
What other adults think and believe in society is not my responsibility. I believe that society should be based on verifiable facts, evinced arguments, and the willingness to be compromise on contentious issues. We’re all not going to get exactly what we want from society, but through negotiation and Reason, a middling solution must be found. The best way to interrogate the issues that we all face in the broader societal context is to have the ability to discuss social issues without fear in a nuanced and usually complex way. No topic should be off limits in a reasonable discussion – yet an entire class of unreasonable arguments seems to be off that table. Those arguments deal with the ideas of personal identity and how the individual and society is supposed to interact.
The problematic identities that are causing friction in society usually involve the nebulous concept of ‘gender’. Gender is the set of socially constructed beliefs and values that are associated with the two sexes of human beings in society. For instance, males are aggressive and good leaders, while females are compassionate and good care-givers are both examples of sex stereotypes (aka gender) that individuals in each sex class are saddled with. Society is constructed around the preservation of these stereotypes and in breaking them there is usually a negative social cost involved.
Feminists, during the second wave, sought to break down these gender stereotypes and move toward an understanding of gender as an often toxic construction of norms and ideas that shouldn’t necessarily be followed. Gender non-conforming behaviour was lauded as the way forward as individuals of both sexes should be able to access and embody the traits and values that were traditionally ‘not allowed’ for them. Women could be aggressive, powerful leaders while men could be caring nurturing and family orientated – and neither would face social censure for acting outside what was considered “normal” for their sex classes.
I consider the refutation of gender norms and gender non-conforming behaviour to be the way forward in society as individuals should be able to embody whatever sex stereotypical sets of behaviours that seem right for them.
All of this is based on the notion that gender is a set of sex stereotypical behaviours that have been arbitrarily (and some times coercively) assigned to the two human sexes.
The Transgender Identity movement we know today takes precisely the opposite view of sex stereotypes and how they should play out in society. Transgender ideology states that the act of performing and identifying with one set of sex stereotypes *makes* you that stereotype AND the physical sex associated with it. So for instance, a man who likes wearing high heels and dresses (both sex stereotypical clothing types) should be regarded as a ‘woman’ (adult human female). Because, in transgender ideology, adopting femininity and feminine affect is what makes women ‘women’.
To reality based feminists and most of the general population this is a preposterous notion. Human beings inhabit a sexual binary. We are either male or female for the most part. What makes a woman or a man is simply being male or female with all the associated physical characteristics. We are defined by the sex class we are born into – the set of stereotypes prescribed for us is based on natal sex. Second Wave feminism correctly identified gender as (usually harmful) sex-stereotypes and specifically rallied against the notion that to be a proper man or a woman one must follow the normative prescriptions of gender identity.
Transgender ideology flips this around and says that people who don’t associate with set of sex stereotypes that are assigned to them must then adopt the stereotypes of the opposite sex and through gender magic the individual ‘transitions’ to actually being the opposite sex. Thus, acting a male acting in a stereotypical female fashion ACTUALLY becomes female.
This is Grade A bonafide horseshit, but it is the tenet that lies at the very heart of transgenderism – by adopting they stereotypes of the opposite sex, you become that sex… Fundamentally, the notion is nonsensical and at odds with the physical reality we all share. But it is also here where the compelled speech becomes and issue for me and the rest of society. You see, correctly observing reality is looked at as harmful and abusive because it does not align with the transgender individuals internalized notion of gender and of which sex they are. The transgender movement argues that subjective feelings of individuals should override the rights of others in correctly identifying the physical reality that is before their very eyes. A male is woman because he has feminine feelings and because he says so, and to contradict his gender delusion is to be bigoted and transphobic.
In polite society, being a bigot or phobic carries serious social consequences which is precisely why the transgender movement subverted these social norms to comport with their inner feelings of gender and the protection thereof. Individuals in society must then carefully consider the social costs to disagreeing with transgender ideology which makes it harder to discuss and grapple with. Sometimes it’s just easier and safer to go along with the gender deluded individual despite the damage being done to free speech and allegiance to material reality in society. It is this chilling paradigm that I rally against.
If we value the liberal foundation that we have based our society on, transgender ideology and those who espouse it should not get a free pass. Transgender ideology must be debated, argued, and its merits and faults examined closely in society. Compelled speech to preserve gender-feelings that do not comport with reality is an unacceptable state of affairs. The current imposition of transgender ideology is a clear and present safeguarding issue to women and children in our society because men who identify as women are gaining access to single sex spaces based on their say-so and that, if we value the safety of children and women, is a problem.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…