You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Free Speech’ tag.
Alberta’s Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, marks one of the most significant free-expression protections introduced in Canada in a generation. In a political climate where professional regulators increasingly police personal beliefs, Alberta has drawn a constitutional line: no regulator has the right to punish lawful off-duty expression or enforce ideological conformity.
For a country grappling with expanding limits on acceptable speech, Bill 13 is a clear statement that cognitive liberty still matters — and must be defended.
Protecting the Mind from Institutional Overreach
The bill’s core principle is simple:
regulated professionals — doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, engineers — do not surrender their freedom of thought or expression when they obtain a license.
Bill 13 therefore prohibits regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for their lawful off-duty expressive conduct. The definition is broad by design:
any communication or symbolic act that expresses meaning is protected, unless it involves real harm such as violence, criminal acts, abuse of professional power, or sexual misconduct.
This is precisely the line a free society should defend. Regulators must ensure competence — not enforce an ideological worldview.
The “Peterson Law”: A Necessary Rebalance
Bill 13 responds directly to cases like that of Jordan Peterson, whose regulator attempted to discipline him for personal political commentary made outside his clinical practice. Whatever one thinks of Peterson, the precedent was dangerous: it implied that professionals serve at the pleasure of ideological censors.
Bill 13 rejects this entirely.
It enshrines a foundational principle:
Your license does not give the state ownership of your mind.
In a country where social and professional pressures increasingly enforce narrow orthodoxies, this is an overdue correction.
Ending Ideological Compulsion in Professional Licensing
The bill also prohibits mandatory ideological training unless it directly relates to professional competence or ethics. This includes DEI, unconscious-bias modules, or cultural-competency courses whose content extends beyond verifiable job requirements.
This is not a rejection of diversity or ethics. It is a rejection of the assumption that the state can compel belief — or force professionals to internalize political frameworks as a condition of employment.
Canada has drifted toward a model where ideological education is treated as neutral truth. Bill 13 restores the older liberal idea:
the state regulates conduct, not thought.
Reaffirming Charter Principles the Rest of Canada Left Behind
Bill 13 strengthens the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Alberta’s Bill of Rights in appeals. Regulators must now justify any intrusion on expression using a correctness standard, not deferential rubber-stamping.
In effect, Alberta is telling professional bodies:
If you are going to infringe expression, you must prove it is justified — and most ideological policing won’t survive that scrutiny.
This is how constitutional societies are supposed to operate.
A Model for a Canada That Has Lost Confidence in Its Own Freedoms
Critics warn of dangers. But these warnings always elide the key truth:
Bill 13 does not protect threats, criminality, hate-motivated harassment, or abuse of professional power.
It protects speech — not harm.
It protects thought — not misconduct.
It protects dissent — not danger.
And this is urgently needed. Across Canada, cognitive liberty is narrowing. Professionals face whispered threats, social pressure, licensing consequences, reputational ruin, and ideological gatekeeping for expressing legitimate political or social views. The boundary between professional standards and ideological enforcement has blurred.
Bill 13 restores that boundary with clarity and force.
Verdict: Alberta Is Right — and Other Provinces Should Follow
Alberta’s bill is a principled pushback against a creeping culture of compelled ideology. It marks a return to classical liberalism, where the right to think and speak freely is not contingent on political fashion.
By affirming that professionals retain sovereignty over their own minds, Bill 13 sets a vital precedent for the rest of Canada.
At a time when our freedoms feel increasingly conditional, Alberta has chosen to defend them.
For those who still believe in free speech, open debate, and the inviolability of conscience should celebrate when this bill is passed.
Amy Hamm, a British Columbia nurse, faces a $93,811 fine from the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) for a thought-crime: stating that humans are biologically sexed and gender identity cannot override this reality. Her off-duty remarks defending women’s sex-based rights, like female-only spaces, were ruled “discriminatory and derogatory” by a disciplinary panel. The decision, released March 13, 2025, followed over 20 days of hearings triggered by activist complaints—not patients—over her support for J.K. Rowling and posts declaring “there are only two sexes.”
Hamm’s ordeal mirrors a Maoist-style struggle session, a public shaming meant to crush dissent. The BCCNM’s 115-page ruling, backed by ideologically aligned “experts,” condemned her for challenging gender identity dogma, equating her advocacy with “erasing” trans existence. No evidence of patient harm surfaced. Yet Hamm—fired without severance by Vancouver Coastal Health—faced harassment, death threats, and accusations of professional misconduct for her views.
This is no anomaly but a trend: regulators weaponize “professional standards” to silence dissent on gender ideology, as seen in the Ontario College of Psychologists’ pursuit of Jordan Peterson for his social media critiques of progressive orthodoxy. Canada’s Charter protects free expression, but bodies like the BCCNM act as enforcers of dogma. Hamm’s appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court, backed by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, challenges this overreach, but the precedent endangers all who prioritize truth.
Canada’s buckling healthcare system squanders resources on ideological witch hunts while patients languish. Hamm’s near-$100,000 fine for speaking truth signals a nation veering from reason into authoritarian zeal, where dissent becomes heresy and free inquiry burns.
Sources Referenced
- B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives, Discipline Committee Decision, March 13, 2025
- Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Press Releases, March–April 2025
- National Post, Opinion, April 6, 2025
- Aggregated X posts, August 2025
The sentencing of Lucy Connolly, a 41-year-old childminder from Northampton, to 31 months in prison for an offensive X post represents a disturbing shift toward authoritarian governance in the United Kingdom. On July 29, 2024, Connolly posted a message urging “mass deportation now” and to “set fire” to hotels housing asylum seekers, in the context of the Southport attacks. As reported by the BBC, “The post was viewed 310,000 times before she deleted it within four hours.” Despite her guilty plea and expressions of remorse, the severe sentence, upheld on appeal in May 2025, prioritizes punishment over proportionality, signaling a state overreach that stifles free speech. This case exemplifies how legal mechanisms can be weaponized to suppress dissent, a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
The legal basis for Connolly’s conviction, Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, allows broad discretion in criminalizing speech deemed to incite racial hatred. The Crown Prosecution Service noted, “Connolly admitted publishing material which was threatening, abusive or insulting and intended to stir up racial hatred.” However, the post’s rapid deletion and Connolly’s lack of prior convictions suggest a lighter penalty, such as a fine, could have sufficed. Instead, the court imposed a near-maximum sentence, with the appeal judges stating, “There is no arguable basis for saying the sentence was disproportionate,” as per The Independent. This rigid application of vague laws to punish speech mirrors authoritarian tactics, where the state uses legal ambiguity to silence controversial voices and deter open discourse.
The societal impact of Connolly’s sentence creates a chilling effect on free expression, a cornerstone of democracy. The Free Speech Union criticized the sentence as “plainly disproportionate,” warning of its broader implications for free speech. Public reaction, including a fundraiser exceeding £50,000, reflects widespread concern that the punishment outweighs the crime. When a single post, however offensive, leads to over two years in prison for a first-time offender, it signals that the state values ideological control over individual liberty. This echoes authoritarian governance, where dissent is swiftly penalized to enforce conformity, pushing citizens toward self-censorship out of fear of legal consequences.
Comparisons to other cases highlight the disproportionate nature of Connolly’s punishment, reinforcing perceptions of authoritarian overreach. For instance, Philip Prescott received 28 months for violent disorder, while Haris Ghaffar got 20 months, despite their actions involving physical harm rather than words. The Independent reported, “Tyler Kay was jailed for 38 months for sharing Ms. Connolly’s post,” showing how the state extends punishment to amplifying speech, widening the net of censorship. This prioritization of controlling narrative over addressing tangible harm is a tactic seen in authoritarian regimes, where speech is deemed a greater threat than physical acts, undermining democratic principles.
In conclusion, Lucy Connolly’s 31-month sentence for an offensive X post marks a dangerous slide toward authoritarian governance in the UK. By leveraging vague legal provisions to impose harsh penalties on rapidly retracted speech, the state demonstrates a preference for control over individual rights. The chilling effect on free expression, disproportionate sentencing compared to violent crimes, and public backlash all point to a system prioritizing ideological conformity. As the Free Speech Union’s critique suggests, such precedents risk normalizing state overreach, eroding democratic freedoms and paving the way for further authoritarian measures under the guise of public order.
References:
1. BBC News. “Lucy Connolly jailed for race hate post on X loses appeal.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v5926yeqro
2. The Independent. “Why was Lucy Connolly jailed for a tweet and why was her appeal dismissed?” https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/lucy-connolly-court-jail-appeal-b2754556.html
3. Crown Prosecution Service. “Updated sentence: Childminder admits inciting racial hatred over social media post.” https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-childminder-admits-inciting-racial-hatred-over-social-media-post
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of Canadian democracy, enshrined in Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to express one’s opinions and beliefs without fear of censorship or reprisal. This fundamental right fosters open dialogue, encourages diverse perspectives, and underpins a free and democratic society. However, in recent years, the rise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, often rooted in ideological frameworks that prioritize certain narratives over others, has posed challenges to free expression. The case of Margaret Munn, a teacher candidate at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), exemplifies how such initiatives can suppress dissenting voices. Munn faced significant repercussions for expressing views critical of DEI and decolonization policies during her teacher training, highlighting a troubling trend where ideological conformity overshadows open discourse (FSU Canada, 2024).
Margaret Munn’s experience at UWO illustrates the chilling effect of DEI initiatives on academic freedom and free speech. As a mature student in the Bachelor of Education program, Munn was required to demonstrate “professionalism” by aligning with DEI and decolonization principles, which she found overly prescriptive. When she expressed concerns about these frameworks and their impact on educational practices, she faced accusations of unprofessionalism and was ultimately expelled from her practicum placement. This led to her inability to complete her degree, effectively derailing her career aspirations (FSU Canada, 2024). The Faculty of Education’s response, as detailed in court documents, emphasized adherence to institutional values over open debate, suggesting that questioning DEI principles was incompatible with professional standards (Court File No. CV-24-00002418-0000, 2024). This case underscores how DEI initiatives, when rigidly enforced, can create an environment where only approved viewpoints are tolerated, stifling the very diversity of thought they claim to promote.
The broader implications of Munn’s case reflect a growing tension between free speech and ideological mandates in Canadian institutions. DEI frameworks often emphasize collective equity over individual rights, which can lead to policies that prioritize certain groups’ sensitivities over open dialogue. At UWO, Munn was penalized not for harmful actions but for her intellectual dissent, which was deemed a violation of the faculty’s commitment to inclusivity (Quillette, 2024). This approach mirrors a wider trend where “woke” ideologies—encompassing DEI, decolonization, and related social justice frameworks—impose speech codes that limit what can be said or questioned. Such restrictions risk creating echo chambers, where only ideologically aligned perspectives are permitted, undermining the principles of academic inquiry and free expression that universities are meant to uphold. The suppression of Munn’s voice demonstrates how these initiatives can weaponize concepts like professionalism to silence dissent, eroding the pluralistic foundation of Canadian society.
Defending freedom of speech requires acknowledging that true diversity includes diversity of thought, even when those thoughts challenge prevailing ideologies. The Munn case highlights the need for institutions to prioritize open debate over ideological conformity. Universities, as bastions of intellectual freedom, should foster environments where students and faculty can question policies like DEI without fear of retribution. The Faculty Solidarity Unit (FSU) argues that Munn’s expulsion reflects a systemic issue where academic institutions prioritize ideological goals over Charter-protected rights (FSU Canada, 2024). Protecting free speech does not mean endorsing every viewpoint but ensuring that all perspectives can be expressed and debated without penalty. By contrast, the rigid application of DEI frameworks, as seen at UWO, risks creating a hierarchy of acceptable speech, where only certain ideas are deemed safe or professional, undermining the democratic principles that allow Canada to thrive.
In conclusion, the case of Margaret Munn vs. University of Western Ontario serves as a cautionary tale about the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada under the guise of DEI and related ideological initiatives. While these frameworks aim to promote inclusivity, their implementation can suppress dissenting voices, as seen in Munn’s expulsion for questioning institutional policies. Freedom of speech is not just a legal right but a cultural necessity that enables robust debate and the pursuit of truth. To safeguard this right, Canadian institutions must resist the temptation to enforce ideological conformity and instead embrace open dialogue, even when it challenges prevailing norms. By doing so, they can uphold the values of a free and democratic society where all voices, including those like Munn’s, are heard and respected (Quillette, 2024).
References
- FSU Canada. (2024). Margaret Munn v. University of Western Ontario. Retrieved from https://fsucanada.ca/margaret-munn-v-university-of-western-ontario/
- Court File No. CV-24-00002418-0000. (2024). Munn v. University of Western Ontario. Retrieved from https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:325ae543-0142-4ab4-9bb6-c79bae4e4571?viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
- Quillette. (2024). Lessons from a Teachers’ College Battle over Free Speech and Decolonization. Retrieved from https://quillette.com/2024/11/29/lessons-from-a-teachers-college-battle-over-free-speech-and-decolonization/
In Canada, being quietly conservative often feels like navigating a tightrope in a society heavily influenced by left-leaning ideas, particularly those promoted by the mainstream media (MSM). The Liberal Party, a dominant political force since World War II, has shaped a cultural narrative that aligns with progressive values, as evidenced by their 2021 platform focusing on affordable childcare and aggressive climate action. This MSM alignment with liberal orthodoxy creates immense pressure for conservatives to conform, especially in public-facing roles like teaching or corporate environments. For many conservatives, staying silent becomes a survival tactic in a landscape where their beliefs are often viewed as out of step with the dominant ideology, forcing them to weigh the cost of speaking out against the need to maintain social harmony.
The risk to social and professional standing for voicing conservative opinions in Canada is both real and pervasive. A 2020 study found that 25% of Canadians feel uncomfortable sharing their opinions at work, with this figure rising to 31% for ethnic minorities, reflecting a broader culture of suppression. For conservatives, expressing non-liberal views—such as skepticism about rapid cultural shifts or government overreach—can lead to ostracism, career setbacks, or even job loss. In workplaces and social circles, conservatives often face the threat of being labeled as backward or intolerant, a stigma that can damage relationships and professional opportunities. This fear of repercussions creates a chilling effect, compelling many to remain silent to protect their livelihoods and social standing.
Left-leaning thinking dominates Canada’s social space, particularly in urban centers, educational institutions, and media outlets, creating an environment where conservative perspectives are frequently marginalized. The Liberal Party’s long-standing influence, especially under leaders like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, entrenched a “Just Society” vision that prioritizes equality and government intervention, a legacy that continues to shape public discourse. This dominance is reinforced by cultural narratives that often frame conservative views as outdated or unacceptable, leaving little room for dissent. Educational institutions, as noted in studies, have become breeding grounds for socialist ideas, further entrenching left-leaning ideologies among younger generations. Such an environment stifles open debate, enforcing conformity and limiting the diversity of thought necessary for a balanced society.
This ideological imbalance harms Canadians by restricting the range of ideas needed to address complex societal challenges. When conservative perspectives—often rooted in fiscal restraint, cultural preservation, or skepticism of rapid change—are silenced, policies lack the nuance required to serve a diverse population. Abacus Data’s 2025 report highlights a growing segment of Canadians who are economically progressive but culturally conservative, yet their voices are often overlooked. This suppression risks alienating rural and traditional communities, particularly in regions like Alberta, where conservative values have historically been strong, deepening national divides and fostering resentment. Without a diversity of perspectives, Canada misses out on innovative solutions and balanced governance, which are critical for long-term stability.
Ultimately, the suppression of conservative voices in Canada creates a more divided and less resilient society, undermining the nation’s ability to tackle pressing issues. When a significant portion of the population feels unable to express their views, trust in institutions erodes, and political polarization intensifies, potentially fueling populist movements. This lack of open discourse prevents Canada from addressing challenges—like housing affordability or immigration policy—with the pragmatism required for sustainable solutions. For Canadians as a whole, fostering an environment where all perspectives can be voiced without fear is essential to building a cohesive society. A nation that silences half its voices risks losing the very diversity and strength it claims to champion.
The recent protests at McGill University, where anti-Israel activists physically blocked access to lecture halls and disrupted classes, represent a troubling departure from the principles of free speech and Canadian values. On April 2, 2025, as reported by B’nai Brith Canada, masked protesters in the Bronfman Building prevented students from attending classes, with chants of “McGill, McGill you can’t hide, you’re complicit in genocide” echoing through the campus. While protest is a protected right, these actions crossed into intimidation and coercion, as students were denied their fundamental right to education. Free speech in Canada is about expressing ideas without fear of retribution, not about obstructing others’ rights or creating a hostile environment. Such behavior is distinctly un-Canadian, as it undermines the nation’s commitment to mutual respect, dialogue, and the rule of law—values that have long defined Canadian society.
McGill University’s response to these protests highlights a glaring abdication of responsibility. Despite the disruptions, which forced some classes online and led to acts of vandalism, the university’s initial reaction was tepid, only implementing ID-based access controls on April 4, 2025, after days of chaos. Advocacy groups like the Canadian Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and concerned individuals have called for decisive action, pointing to the hostile environment created for Jewish students and the broader student body. McGill’s failure to swiftly address the physical blockades and ensure safe access to education sends a dangerous message: that the university prioritizes appeasing disruptive activists over protecting the rights of all students. This inaction not only erodes trust in the institution but also sets a precedent for tolerating intimidation under the guise of activism, further emboldening such behavior on Canadian campuses.
The protests at McGill reveal a deeper issue: a two-tier system of justice that is profoundly divisive for Canadian society. While the protesters faced little immediate consequence for their actions, students attempting to attend classes were left to fend for themselves, as seen in videos where individuals were physically blocked from entering lecture halls. This disparity in treatment—where one group’s “right” to protest is elevated above others’ rights to safety and education—creates a fractured campus environment. Jewish students, in particular, have reported feeling unsafe, with advocacy groups framing the protests as antisemitic. Meanwhile, some individuals with differing views supported the protesters, accusing Israel and its supporters of enabling genocide. This polarization reflects a broader societal trend where identity-based grievances are weaponized, pitting groups against each other rather than fostering unity, a core Canadian ideal.
My blog post *The Oblivious Irony of Canada’s Progressive Left* provides a stark illustration of this trend, noting, “The progressive left’s obsession with identity politics has created a hierarchy of victimhood, where certain groups are given carte blanche to act with impunity, while others are silenced or vilified.” This observation captures the essence of the McGill protests, where the activists’ cause—framed as a fight against oppression—seemingly justified their coercive tactics, while the rights of other students were dismissed. Identity politics, as I argue, has become a divisive force in Canada, eroding the shared values of fairness and equality that once united the nation. The McGill protests are a microcosm of this larger societal shift, where the pursuit of “justice” for one group comes at the expense of others, deepening divisions and resentment.
In conclusion, the actions at McGill University are not a legitimate exercise of free speech but a violation of the principles that define Canada as a nation. By allowing protesters to intimidate and obstruct, McGill has failed its students, particularly those who felt targeted or unsafe, and has contributed to a two-tier system of justice that undermines Canadian unity. The divisive impact of identity politics, as highlighted in previously, underscores the urgent need for a return to shared values—respect, dialogue, and equal treatment under the law. Canadian society cannot thrive when one group’s rights are prioritized over another’s, and institutions like McGill must take responsibility to ensure that campuses remain spaces for learning, not coercion. Only by upholding these principles can Canada reclaim its identity as a nation of fairness and inclusion for all.
Amy Hamm, a registered nurse with 13 years of experience, was recently fired by Vancouver Coastal Health following a ruling by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) that deemed her guilty of “professional misconduct.” Her termination stemmed from her public advocacy for sex-based rights, including her co-sponsorship of a 2020 billboard stating “I love JK Rowling” and her statements asserting that biological sex distinctions matter, particularly in contexts like women’s private spaces. This decision has sparked widespread debate, with critics arguing that her firing represents a severe overreach by her professional organization, punishing her for exercising free speech rather than any failure in her nursing duties.
The BCCNM’s investigation, which spanned over four years, focused on Hamm’s off-duty comments made in articles and a podcast where she identified as a nurse. The disciplinary panel labeled her statements about transgender issues as “discriminatory and derogatory,” claiming they undermined trust in the nursing profession. However, Hamm and her supporters contend that her views—rooted in the belief that biological sex is immutable—were not only unrelated to her professional conduct but also reflect a scientifically grounded perspective. The panel’s ruling, followed by her immediate dismissal without severance, raises questions about whether the BCCNM prioritized ideological conformity over fairness and evidence.
Hamm’s mistreatment highlights a broader issue of professional organizations stifling dissent under the guise of maintaining public trust. Her case suggests that nurses and other regulated professionals in Canada may face severe repercussions for expressing personal opinions, even outside their workplace, if those views clash with prevailing social narratives. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which supported Hamm legally, decried the ruling as a blow to free expression, arguing that it sets a chilling precedent for others in similar positions. This punitive approach effectively silences debate on contentious issues, forcing professionals to self-censor or risk their livelihoods.
The decision to fire Hamm also appears disproportionate when considering her exemplary record as a nurse. No evidence was presented that her views impacted her patient care or professional performance; instead, the BCCNM focused solely on the perceived social implications of her statements. This disconnect between her job performance and the punishment meted out underscores a troubling trend: professional bodies acting as arbiters of personal belief rather than guardians of competence. Hamm’s termination without severance after 13 years of service further amplifies the perception of vindictiveness, suggesting an intent to make an example of her rather than address any tangible harm.
In the aftermath, Hamm has vowed to continue speaking out, supported by figures like JK Rowling and a growing chorus of advocates for free speech and women’s rights. Her case exposes the fragility of individual rights within Canada’s regulatory frameworks and the potential for professional organizations to wield unchecked power against those who challenge orthodoxy. As Hamm faces a possible appeal, her ordeal serves as a stark warning: the mistreatment she endured—being fired for her convictions—may foreshadow a future where intellectual freedom is sacrificed for institutional control, leaving professionals vulnerable to ideological purges.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…