You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Free Speech’ tag.
Collin May has published a long, ambitious essay in the C2C journal (Hearts of Darkness: How the Left Uses Hate to Fuel its 21st Century Universal Imperium) on cancel culture, “hate” rhetoric, and the modern left’s moral posture. It is broader than I would write, more philosophical than most readers will tolerate, and occasionally overbuilt. But it names a pattern that matters, and one I return to often here: once “hate” becomes a universal accusation, institutions stop persuading and start policing.
May’s most useful contribution is not just the complaint (“cancel culture exists”) but the mechanism: “hate” stops being a moral description and becomes a category that pre-sorts who may be argued with and who may simply be managed.
That is the issue.
Not whether hatred exists. It does. Not whether some speech is vicious. It is. The issue is what happens when “hate” becomes the default label for disagreement, skepticism, refusal, dissent, or plain moral and factual judgments that cut against elite narratives.
At that point, the term stops describing and starts doing administrative work.
You can watch this happen across the institutions that shape public life: media, HR departments, professional bodies, universities, bureaucracies, and the expanding quasi-legal space around speech regulation. The sequence is familiar. Someone raises a concern about policy, ideology, language rules, school programming, medical ethics, public safety, immigration, religion, or sex-based rights. Instead of answering the argument, the institution reframes the speaker. Not wrong—harmful. Not questioning—spreading hate. Not participating in democratic friction—a threat to social order.
That move changes the rules of engagement. A wrong claim can be debated. A “hateful” claim can be quarantined. Once a claim is reclassified as harm rather than argument, the institutional response changes with it: less rebuttal, more restriction.
This language matters because it is not only moral language. It is managerial language. It justifies deplatforming, censorship, professional discipline, reputational destruction, and exclusion from ordinary civic legitimacy. It creates a class of people whose arguments no longer need to be answered on the merits. It also trains bystanders to confuse moral panic with moral seriousness.
May explains this through a large historical and philosophical genealogy. Fair enough. I am less interested in the full genealogy than in the practical result in front of us. In plain terms: the rhetoric of “hate” is often used to centralize authority in institutions that no longer trust the public and no longer feel obliged to reason with them.
That is one reason trust keeps collapsing.
People can live with disagreement. They can even live with policies they dislike. What they do not tolerate for long is being handled—being told their questions are illegitimate before they are heard. Once citizens conclude that institutions are using moral language as a shield against scrutiny, every future statement gets discounted. Even true statements are heard as spin.
And then the damage compounds. If “hate” is defined so broadly that it includes dissent, genuinely hateful speech becomes harder to identify and confront. The category gets inflated, politicized, and cheapened. Meanwhile, ordinary democratic disagreement becomes harder to conduct without professional or social risk.
That is not a confident free society. It is a managerial one.
Canada is not exempt. We have our own versions of this habit: speech debates reframed as safety debates, policy criticism recoded as identity harm, and public disputes (including over schools, sex-based rights, and even routine civic rituals like land acknowledgements) routed through tribunals, regulators, HR offices, and media scripts instead of open argument. The details vary by case. The mechanism does not. This tactic is not unique to one political tribe, but it is now especially entrenched in progressive-managerial institutions, which is precisely why it has so much reach.
The answer is not to deny hatred exists, or to become casual about cruelty. The answer is to recover civic discipline.
Name actual incitement when it occurs. Enforce existing laws where there are real threats, harassment, or violence. But stop using “hate” as a catch-all for disfavoured views. Stop treating condemnation as a substitute for evidence. Stop teaching institutions that the way to win an argument is to disqualify the speaker.
May quotes Pope Francis on cancel culture as something that “leaves no room.” Whether or not one follows his full historical argument, that phrase captures the operational problem.
A liberal society cannot function if citizens are only permitted to disagree inside moral boundaries drawn in advance by bureaucrats, activists, and legacy media.
The test is simple: can a claim be examined without first being moralized into silence?
If the answer is no, that is not moral confidence. It is institutional insecurity backed by power.
That is the pattern worth naming. And that is why essays like May’s, even when they overshoot, remain worth reading.
References
Collin May, “Hearts of Darkness: How the Left Uses Hate to Fuel its 21st Century Universal Imperium,” C2C Journal (February 16, 2026), https://c2cjournal.ca/2026/02/hearts-of-darkness-how-the-left-uses-hate-to-fuel-its-21st-century-universal-imperium/. (C2C Journal)
This essay is not an argument against transgender adults living freely and being treated decently. It is an argument about a specific set of claims—metaphysical, political, and clinical—that tends to generate persistent institutional conflict because it lacks a shared stopping rule. By “stopping rule,” I mean a principled boundary that both sides can recognize as legitimate: a line where accommodation ends and coercion begins, or where uncertainty requires caution. When subjective identity claims are treated as authoritative and dissent is treated as harm, disputes recur across domains—speech norms, public policy, and pediatric medicine—because there is no common adjudicator capable of resolving the underlying disagreement.
1) Thesis and scope: what is being argued, and what is not
The claim here is procedural. Whatever one’s moral intuitions, systems built to enforce contested metaphysics predictably produce friction that neither side can permanently “win.” A pluralist society can enforce civility and prohibit harassment. It cannot, without escalating conflict, require citizens and institutions to treat an internally felt identity as the final authority over publicly legible categories—especially when those categories structure law, safety, and fairness.
2) Metaphysical claim: identity as authoritative reality
The metaphysical claim, stated minimally, is: when sex and self-declared gender conflict, identity is treated as the authoritative reality for how others must speak and for how institutions must categorize. In a liberal society, people routinely request courtesy; the tension begins when courtesy becomes a duty enforced by institutional sanctions, because that converts disagreements about contested concepts into compliance problems.
The mechanism is structural rather than psychological. If a proposition is treated as morally obligatory yet largely unverifiable, enforcement shifts from evidence to norms, and from norms to penalties. This does not require attributing motives; it is a predictable consequence of asking public systems to operationalize contested metaphysics. The cost is an expansion of “speech governance,” where ordinary interpersonal mistakes or dissenting beliefs are treated as policy violations rather than social disputes. The verdict: making subjective identity authoritative at the level of public rulemaking tends to destabilize shared norms, because the principle contains no internal boundary that can settle recurring disputes.
3) Political claim: institutions forced to referee contested categories
The political claim extends the metaphysical one: public institutions must treat identity as authoritative in classification and access. The “no stopping rule” problem becomes concrete when policy must decide eligibility, categories, and competing rights. Sport is not the whole controversy, but it is a clear case study because sex-segregated categories exist to preserve fairness under stable biological differences.
World Athletics’ 2023 regulations excluding transgender women who have experienced male puberty from elite female competition were an explicit attempt to draw a boundary grounded in performance-relevant biology rather than identity.(worldathletics.org) This example does not “prove” the broader thesis; it illustrates the governing dilemma: once identity is treated as determinative, any sex-based boundary becomes contestable on the same logic, and institutions are pulled into continuous adjudication. The cost is not only policy churn but legitimacy loss, as significant segments of the public come to see institutions as enforcing contested beliefs rather than administering neutral rules. The verdict: when institutions are made to referee contested metaphysical claims, policy disputes harden into identity conflicts and become difficult to resolve through ordinary pluralist compromise.
4) Clinical claim: minors, uncertainty, and the need for evidentiary brakes
The clinical claim is narrower and higher-stakes: affirmation-first protocols are often presented as the evidence-based default for minors, despite ongoing disputes about evidence quality, long-term outcomes, and appropriate thresholds for irreversible interventions.
The mechanism is again about stopping rules. In pediatrics, where patients may have limited capacity to grasp lifelong tradeoffs and where interventions can be difficult to reverse, uncertainty normally triggers caution: structured assessment, conservative pathways, and high evidentiary standards. In England, the Cass Review’s recommendations prompted major service redesign, and NHS England’s implementation document outlines steps already taken and planned in response to those recommendations.(england.nhs.uk) The UK government also announced that emergency restrictions on the private sale and supply of puberty blockers would be made indefinite following advice from the Commission on Human Medicines, citing safety concerns; the DHSC explainer situates this within a broader shift toward research frameworks.(gov.uk)
The point is not that UK policy settles the science. The point is procedural: a major public health system treated evidentiary uncertainty as a reason to tighten pathways and emphasize research structures. The cost of overstating certainty is predictable—trust erosion among families, clinicians, and the public when policy appears to run ahead of evidence. The verdict: for minors, uncertainty should operate as a brake; when it does not, clinical decision-making becomes vulnerable to political and ideological pressure.
5) Steelman, with a credibility caveat: what proponents argue, and why WPATH cannot be treated as neutral authority
A fair steelman starts with the humane premise: some young people experience profound distress; social rejection correlates with worse mental health; supportive environments may reduce suffering; and for adults, liberal societies generally presume wide autonomy over body and presentation. Observational research has reported short-term associations between receiving puberty blockers or hormones and lower reported depression or suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youth, while still facing the usual limitations of nonrandomized designs (selection effects, confounding, short follow-up).(jamanetwork.com)
Advocates often cite WPATH’s Standards of Care (SOC8) as a professional consensus reference point. A publishable essay, however, has to include a procedural caveat: SOC8 is now contested as an uncontested authority, particularly for minors, due to public disputes about guideline-development process and evidentiary representation. The “WPATH Files” publication by Environmental Progress alleges internal discussions inconsistent with the public posture of evidentiary confidence.(environmentalprogress.org) Separately, an HHS report alleged that during SOC8 development, WPATH suppressed certain systematic reviews considered potentially undermining to preferred protocols.(opa.hhs.gov) WPATH and USPATH responded by disputing key characterizations and criticizing the HHS report, framing it as misrepresenting evidence, and noting constraints around ongoing litigation and related processes.(wpath.org)
The responsible conclusion is limited but important: SOC8 may still be used to describe the best-case articulation of the pro-affirmation position, but it cannot function as a neutral “settled science” stamp—especially in a pediatric domain where evidentiary confidence must be demonstrable rather than asserted. The verdict: steelman the humane intent and the reported short-term associations; do not outsource epistemic certainty to a guideline whose development and representation are under active public dispute.
6) Synthesis: stopping rules as the governance solution
The practical question is governance, not moral panic: can a pluralistic society accommodate people without compelling metaphysical assent, and can pediatric medicine proceed without overstating certainty? The answer is unglamorous: stopping rules.
In institutions, stopping rules mean enforcing civil treatment and anti-harassment norms while refusing to treat metaphysical agreement as a condition of participation in public life. In medicine, stopping rules mean evidence thresholds, transparent review, and heightened caution for minors where long-term outcomes remain contested. If stopping rules are refused, conflict tends to migrate: from clinics to courts, from policy to punishment, from persuasion to compulsion. The cost is durable polarization and degraded trust in institutions. The verdict: if the goal is social peace and clinical integrity, the burden is on advocates and opponents alike to articulate boundaries that are evidence-responsive, rights-consistent, and enforceable without demanding ideological conformity.
Glossary
Affirmation-first: A clinical approach that treats a person’s stated gender identity as true and prioritizes support for it; critics argue it may reduce exploratory assessment, especially for minors.
Cass Review: Independent review commissioned by NHS England into child and adolescent gender services; its recommendations prompted service redesign and tighter evidence standards.(england.nhs.uk)
Observational study: Research that observes outcomes without random assignment; can show association but generally cannot prove causation.(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Puberty blockers (GnRHa): Medications that suppress pubertal development; debated in youth gender medicine due to evidence-quality and risk/benefit uncertainty.(gov.uk)
SOC8: WPATH Standards of Care, version 8 (2022), widely cited in gender medicine; currently disputed as neutral authority in some public controversies.(environmentalprogress.org)
Stopping rule: A principled boundary that can settle recurring disputes (e.g., evidence thresholds for minors; category rules in sport).
WPATH Files: A publication of alleged internal WPATH materials by Environmental Progress; relevant here because it is part of an ongoing credibility dispute about guideline development.(environmentalprogress.org)
References
- NHS England, Implementing the Cass Review recommendations (PDF). https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PRN01451-implementing-the-cass-review-recommendations.pdf
- NHS England, Children and young people’s gender services: implementing the Cass Review recommendations (long read). https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/children-and-young-peoples-gender-services-implementing-the-cass-review-recommendations/
- UK Department of Health and Social Care, “Ban on puberty blockers to be made indefinite on experts’ advice” (11 Dec 2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-puberty-blockers-to-be-made-indefinite-on-experts-advice
- DHSC Media Blog, “Puberty blockers: what you need to know.” https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2024/12/11/puberty-blockers-what-you-need-to-know/
- World Athletics press release (Mar 2023) on female eligibility. https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/council-meeting-march-2023-russia-belarus-female-eligibility
- World Athletics eligibility regulations PDF. https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=c50f2178-3759-4d1c-8fbc-370f6aef4370.pdf&urlslug=C3.5A%20%E2%80%93%20Eligibility%20Regulations%20Transgender%20Athletes%20%E2%80%93%20effective%2031%20March%202023
- Tordoff et al., JAMA Network Open (2022). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423
- Environmental Progress, “The WPATH Files.” https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files
- HHS, Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria (Nov 2025). https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report.pdf
- WPATH/USPATH response (May 2025). https://wpath.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WPATH-USPATH-Response-to-HHS-Report-02May2025-3.pdf
The background.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62ln7mzd5ro – This BBC analysis explores the escalating debate on UK free speech limits, highlighting comparisons to authoritarian regimes like North Korea and the heated rhetoric around Starmer’s policies.
bbc.com
- https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/watch-what-you-say-or-two-tier-keir-might-put-you-away-73e99511 – A Wall Street Journal opinion piece critiques selective punishment of speech dissenting from progressive views in Starmer’s Britain, directly referencing the “Two Tier Keir” nickname.
wsj.com
- https://www.city-journal.org/article/britain-keir-starmer-free-speech-crime – This City Journal article discusses Britain’s shift toward authoritarianism, focusing on Starmer’s role in prosecuting speech crimes and curtailing individual freedoms.
city-journal.org
- https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-government-accused-cracking-down-free-speech-think-before-you-post – Fox News reports on accusations of Starmer’s government rolling back free speech protections, including the “Two-tier Keir” label amid claims of selective law enforcement.
foxnews.com
In a revealing glimpse behind the curtain, commentator Andrew Doyle recently highlighted how certain narratives are tightly controlled within major media organizations. According to Doyle, the BBC has an “LGBT desk” that effectively acts as a gatekeeper, making sure all stories related to sexuality or gender must align with a particular viewpoint before they get the green light.
This revelation sheds light on how media outlets can become ideologically captured, turning into echo chambers rather than platforms for open dialogue. While there are undoubtedly excellent journalists at the BBC, Doyle’s insight reveals a systemic issue: when certain desks have the power of veto over stories, it raises questions about whose voices are being heard and whose are being filtered out.
In a time when free speech and diverse perspectives are more important than ever, understanding how these behind-the-scenes dynamics work is crucial. After all, a truly free press should aim to present a range of viewpoints rather than enforcing a single narrative.
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
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…