You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Oh Canada?’ tag.
Emanuel Brünisholz, a Swiss repairman, has made headlines for refusing to pay a fine imposed for a social-media comment stating what he says are biological truths: that there are only two sexes as determined by skeletal evidence. Because he wouldn’t pay the fine, he opted instead to serve 10 days in jail. He was convicted under Switzerland’s anti-discrimination laws (Art. 261bis), which have been expanded to include “sexual identities” beyond race, religion, etc. His statement was judged to belittle the LGBTQI community and violate human dignity, though Brünisholz insists he was speaking objective biological fact. (Reduxx)
This case is deeply troubling, because it illustrates a slippery slope: when a judge or prosecutor can criminalize speech that claims a biological fact, simply because some group interprets it as hateful. That is not far off from what proposed Canadian legislation threatens. The Combatting Hate Act, introduced in September 2025, would make it a criminal offence to “wilfully promote hatred” against identifiable groups (including on grounds of gender identity) by any public display or speech. It also aims to streamline prosecutions for “hate propaganda,” remove some procedural checks, and broaden the definition of hate. Critics warn that this will give activist minority claims outsized power over what counts as acceptable speech. (Government of Canada)
If Brünisholz’s case was an outlier, then Canada’s proposals make clear this is a trajectory, not a one-off. Under the proposed laws, someone could theoretically be prosecuted (and even imprisoned) for speaking truths about biological sex if a court determines that such statements violate the new definitions of hatred or hate speech. That means what is scientifically or biologically reality could become illegal speech, depending on who is offended and how strong the activist pressure is. In a Western democracy that claims to defend freedom of expression, this is simply unacceptable.
We must not accept that the mere possibility of offending a protected group is enough for criminal sanction. We must resist laws that hand over the power to judges or prosecutors (or activist complainants) to decide what biological truths are “hate.” Because once speech can be criminalized based on activist interpretation, the foundations of open, free inquiry, reason, and reality are at risk.
Key Comparisons: Swiss Case vs. Proposed Canadian Laws
| Feature | Swiss Case (Brünisholz) | Proposed Canadian Laws (Combatting Hate Act / related bills) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of statement | Emphasis on binary sex; “only man and woman” skeleton argument | Biological sex, gender identity claims could be targeted under new definitions of hate |
| Punishment | Fine convertible to 10 days jail if unpaid | Proposed penalties include imprisonment, removal of procedural protections |
| Law basis | Anti-discrimination / hate speech law expanded to “sexual identities” in Switzerland | Criminal Code, Criminal Code’s hate propaganda provisions, amendments to CHRA, etc. |
| Risk of censorship | High — statement considered “belittling” a protected class despite appeal to biological evidence | Also high — definitions are broad; courts could side with activist interpretations over scientific or factual speech |
| Freedom of speech concern | Biologically rooted fact may be criminalized if deemed insulting or hateful | Same concern: scientific / truth claims could be suppressed if they conflict with activist definitions of what counts as acceptable speech |
Why This Matters
- Biological Truths Are Not “Opinions” Alone: Things like male vs. female biological sex are backed by sciences like genetics, anatomy, forensic anthropology. If those become “hate speech” when expressed, then reality is subject to legal veto by ideological enforcement.
- The Power to Define “Hate” is the Power to Silence: Under Canadian law, if definitions of hatred or hatred-motivated speech expand (especially by removing required consent, or giving prosecutors more discretion), then more speech becomes liable—not because it causes harm, but because someone claims it does.
- Free Speech is Not Optional: Western democracy is built in part on being able to speak even unpopular or uncomfortable truths. If truth becomes legally risky, we’re no longer free—even if the penalties aren’t always applied.
- Precedent Matters: Once speech is criminalized for some, even “harmless” speech tomorrow could become the target. Laws tend to expand in scope over time. The Brünisholz case shows how “harmless to some, hateful to others” becomes a legal equation.
What to Watch & What to Do
- Monitor what the final definitions are in Canadian bills: how they define hatred, “wilfully promoting hatred,” “identifiable groups,” and what defenses are permitted (e.g., truth, scientific basis).
- Watch penalties: whether fines only, or possibility of imprisonment; whether Criminal Code or human rights tribunal; how strong the burden of proof is.
- Pay attention to how administrative procedures work: whether prosecutors need prior approvals, whether individuals or groups can privately instigate charges/complaints, whether there’s ability to appeal.
- Support and defend free speech, especially for dissenting or scientific views. Speak out when persons are penalized for expressing what others call “politically incorrect truths.”
References
- “Swiss Man Opts For Jail Time Instead Of Fine After Being Charged Over ‘Transphobic’ Social Media Post”, Reduxx, Sept 26, 2025 — Brünisholz case. (Reduxx)
- “Combatting Hate Act: Proposed Legislation to Protect Communities Against Hate”, Government of Canada, Sept 19, 2025 — summary of proposed amendments, hate definitions, penalties. (Government of Canada)
- “Canada Introduces Legislation to Combat Hate Crimes, Intimidation, and Obstruction”, Department of Justice Canada news release, Sept 19, 2025 — details on new offences including intimidation, obstruction, containing identity grounds. (Government of Canada)
My prompt: “Explain this meme in terms of individuals who were once told that Canada is a genocidal post national state versus now which we come together as proud patriots fighting the bad orange man down south.”
(From Grok AI):This meme uses a three-panel comic to satirize a shift in perception about Canada, particularly in the context of political and cultural narratives.
First Panel: A gray, angry-looking character (often representing a stereotypical “NPC” or someone who follows narratives without questioning) is being approached by a red hand, which typically symbolizes an external force or influence (like media, propaganda, or societal pressure).
Second Panel: The red hand holds a microchip with a Canadian maple leaf crossed out, labeled “NO CANADA,” and inserts it into a slot on the character’s head (implying brainwashing or reprogramming). The background shows a circuit board, reinforcing the idea of manipulation or control. The sound effect “click” indicates the chip being installed, symbolizing the character being fed a narrative. This reflects the idea of individuals being told that Canada is a “genocidal post-national state”—a critical perspective often rooted in discussions about historical issues like the treatment of Indigenous peoples or debates about Canada’s identity under leaders like Justin Trudeau, who once described Canada as a “post-national” state.
Third Panel: The character reappears with the same angry expression, now presumably “reprogrammed.” This suggests that the narrative has taken hold, but the meme doesn’t explicitly show the shift to “proud patriots.” However, based on your description, the implication is that the character (representing Canadians) has now been reprogrammed again to reject the earlier critical view of Canada. Instead, they unite as “proud patriots” to oppose the “bad orange man down south”—a clear reference to Donald Trump, often associated with the color orange due to his complexion and polarizing political presence in the U.S.
Explanation in Context: The meme mocks the idea of Canadians being easily swayed by competing narratives. First, they’re told Canada is a “genocidal post-national state” (a critique possibly tied to progressive or anti-establishment views). Later, they’re reprogrammed to become “proud patriots” who rally against a common enemy—Trump—reflecting a nationalist resurgence, possibly in response to external threats or cultural shifts. It highlights the perceived hypocrisy or flip-flopping of public sentiment, driven by external influences rather than genuine belief.
In the mid-2010s, prominent voices on Canada’s progressive left, including those aligned with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s vision, leaned heavily into the idea of Canada as a “post-national state.” Trudeau himself famously told *The New York Times* in 2015 that “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” framing the country as a mosaic of identities unbound by traditional nationalism. This rhetoric dovetailed with a broader movement to reckon with Canada’s colonial past, exemplified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 2015 report, which labeled the residential school system a “cultural genocide.” Activists and academics pushed to dismantle symbols of national pride, arguing they propped up a settler-colonial legacy. Flags flew at half-mast for 161 days in 2021—over five months—following the alleged “discovery” of unmarked graves at former residential school sites, a gesture that underscored a narrative of shame rather than unity. Patriotism, in this view, was suspect, a relic of a Canada that needed deconstructing.
Fast forward to 2025, and the same progressive cohort now clutches the maple leaf with newfound zeal, spurred by fears of American annexation—whether economic, cultural, or political. The phrase “elbows up, just say no” has surfaced in leftist circles online, a gritty call to resist U.S. influence amid trade disputes and border security debates. This nationalist hyperbole marks a stark pivot from the earlier disdain for Canada-as-nation. Where once the Canadian identity was a punching bag—think of the 2020 toppling of Sir John A. Macdonald’s statue in Montreal by activists decrying his role in Indigenous oppression—now it’s a shield against the Stars and Stripes. The irony is palpable: a movement that spent years driving the notion of “Canadian-ness” into the ground suddenly hoists it aloft when sovereignty feels threatened.
So where was this patriotism when Canada’s symbols and history were being systematically dismantled? The progressive left’s about-face reveals a selective nationalism, dormant when reckoning with internal flaws but roused when an external foil like the United States looms large. The 2021 half-mast marathon, meant to signal humility, left little room for pride in the nation’s resilience or achievements. Yet today, as trade tensions flare—U.S. tariffs on Canadian lumber hit 17.99% in 2024, per the U.S. Department of Commerce—the same voices rally to “protect our way of life.” It’s a jarring contrast: a Canada once deemed unworthy of celebration is now a hill to die on, exposing the fluidity of ideology when convenience calls. The lesson? National identity, it seems, is only as disposable as the threat du jour allows.
From the Canadian Government’s news realease –
“The legislation proposes four new Criminal Code offences that would prohibit:
- causing another person to undergo conversion therapy
- removing a minor from Canada to subject them to conversion therapy abroad
- profiting from providing conversion therapy
- advertising or promoting conversion therapy
The proposed legislation would also authorize courts to order the seizure of conversion therapy advertisements or to order their removal from computer systems or the Internet.
This bill expands on Bill C-6, adopted by the House of Commons in the previous Parliament. It does so by protecting all Canadians—regardless of their age—from the well-documented harms of conversion therapy practices.
Conversion therapy practices aim to change an individual’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change an individual’s gender identity to cisgender, or to change their gender expression to match the sex they were assigned at birth. They harm and further stigmatize sexual and gender-diverse persons and undermine their equality and dignity. They reflect myths and stereotypes about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2) communities, particularly that their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression are wrong. These harmful practices also reinforce heteronormative and cis-normative ideas, as well as gender-conformity on LGBTQ2 individuals.
The practice can take various forms, including counselling and behavioural modification. Conversion therapy practices are discriminatory and have been proven to be harmful to the physical, mental and social well-being of the victim, even for adults who consented to it.
Criminal law reform is an important step in protecting the equality and dignity of LGBTQ2 persons, but more remains to be done. The Government of Canada is committed to working with provinces, territories, municipalities, survivors and stakeholders to ensure that Canada is a country where everyone—regardless of their gender expression, gender identity, or sexual orientation—can live equally and freely.”
The Federal Liberals are going full steam ahead with the gender ideology bullshit. It just passed the in the House of Commons unanimously – because our Conservative opposition has jello instead of a spine.
It looks like we’re trying to codify the ‘gendered soul’ into law in Canada. Of all the nebulous concepts that don’t need the state backing them up, it at the head of the list. This bill had better not be lumping the therapy that actually helps children be comfortable in their own body without surgery of hormones into an unlawful category. The notion that watchful waiting and other material reality confirming therapies are unlawful is just fucking crazy.
From The Canadian Gender report:
“Ken Zucker, Ph.D. C.Psych and Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto presented a discussion of the differences in developmental trajectories for children with gender dysphoria at the 24th Congress of the World Association of Sexual Health, in October 2019, Mexico City. The following information is summarized and quoted from his presentation.
Dr Zucker based his analysis on a review of a number of follow up studies for persistence and desistance rates. He categorized therapeutic approaches designed to reduce gender dysphoria into 3 different types:
- Treatment 1: Assessment, “watchful waiting”
- Treatment 2: Assessment, active treatment of many kinds (recommendations to parents to implement in the naturalistic environment, behavior therapy, play therapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, group therapy, etc., etc.)
- Treatment 3: Gender Social Transition
“The follow-up studies summarized so far, by and large, collected data on children who were assessed (and sometimes treated) prior to the emergence, around the mid-2000s, of pre-pubertal gender social transition as an alternative type of psychosocial treatment designed to reduce gender dysphoria: a treatment that parents may have instituted on their own, in consultation with a clinician, or on the advice of a clinician or some other type of professional (e.g., a teacher).”
The very low persistence rates in the case of Treatments 1 and 2 show that gender identity becomes more congruent with birth-assigned sex in the majority of cases.
To compare the persistence and desistance rates of children who received a gender-affirming care approach characterized by social gender transitioning, Dr Zucker used data from Steensma et al. (2013) which reported a systematic follow-up study of children in which some children were classified as having had either a partial or a complete social transition prior to puberty.
The relationship between social gender transition and the follow-up persistence and desistance rates is striking. Among desisters, almost none of the natal boys had socially transitioned. Almost 45% of the persistors, however, had partially or completely socially transitioned, yet their gender dysphoria had not resolved.
Social transition in relation to persistence and desistance was not as strong among the girls. Almost 60% of the persistors had socially transitioned. A significant number of desisters had socially transitioned as well, although Dr Zucker cautioned that the definition of social transition used by Steensma probably captured some girls where the social transition metric may have been very broad (e.g., change in hair-style or clothing style).
Dr Zucker predicts that as new samples of socially transitioned children become available, the rate of persistence will be much higher when compared to the older studies, where most of the children received either Treatment 1 or Treatment 2. Of the 3rd type of treatment, social gender transition, he commented that it offers a different approach that leads to desistance: the gender dysphoria dissipates because the child is now living in the “desired” gender; however, for desistance to remain stable, it will often, if not always, require biomedical treatment (life-long hormone therapy with or without gender-affirming surgery).
There are many possible pathways to desistance, which leads to the parental conundrum: which therapeutic approach does one take to reduce gender dysphoria? This is what the contemporary parent (and clinician) must decide.”
This is some authentically scary shit. Parents could be arrested for wanting effective means of treatment for their children. This isn’t good my fellow Canadians, and let us hope that the Senate can add some clarity to this proposed nightmare of a bill.
This webpage from the Official Canadian Department of Justice is incomplete because of this:
Where the hell is the definition for men? Did our esteemed Canadian Legal Justice of Department make a little oopsy-boo boo? Probably not. You know why? Because the category of men is fucking indisputable, men will not tolerate having their category “expanded to be more inclusive” because ‘as it known’ men are fully fucking human and distinct category within society. Those females though, they get a whole new meaning that erases them from society it can be found later in this gem of a webpage. I quote:
“Women: All people who identify as women, whether they are cisgender or transgender women.”
A kindly reminder double XX’ers that you malleable and erasable in society, -because ‘gender-feelings’ – males can claim they are women and should be treated as female, and have access to female only spaces, services, and sports.
I’ll be identifying as rightfully pissed off until this gender nonsense is debunked, repealed, and removed from official Canadian Government Websites.
I say erroneous because it includes bullshit like this:
“Cisgender: People whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.”
No person ‘identifies’ with the toxic set of stereotypes that society attempts to shoehorn them into. Especially true for women, as identifying as second class citizen (work for less, second shift, objectification FTW!!!), just isn’t fucking appealing.
Gender-diverse: Refer to individuals who do not identify as exclusively male or exclusively female (for example, individuals who are non-binary or two-spirit).
People have personalities. You are either male or female, with a personality.
Gender identity: A person’s internal and deeply felt sense of being a man or woman, both or neither. A person’s gender identity may or may not align with the gender typically associated with their sex.
What kind of fucking bullshit is this. We do not have souls, gendered or otherwise. What – exactly – does feeling like a woman (or man) entail? Can you describe the experience without using stereotypes?
Non-binary: Person whose gender identity does not align with a binary understanding of gender such as man or woman. A non-binary person may identify as neither a man nor a woman, both, or anywhere along the gender spectrum.
I feel the need to have my own special category that is essentially meaningless so I can feel good about myself for my supposed uniqueness… Get quickly into the Sea, narcissist.
Sex assigned at birth: A person’s biological status as male, female, or intersex based on their primary sexual characteristics at birth.
Sex is observed at birth. There is no assigning. The doctor looks at your junk and on that can accurately observe what sex you are. No assignment necessary.
Women: All people who identify as women, whether they are cisgender or transgender women.
Goddammit Canada. I’m going to identify as the fucking Queen and have the legal department hung by its thumb until some fucking sense trickles back into the department. Women are adult human females. End of fucking story you nitwits.
Gender ideology is infesting our institutions. It needs to be stopped before it goes any farther.
This from Rugby Canada –
“Rugby Canada CEO Allen Vansen stated, “Our trans inclusion policy was written and developed by Sport, Law & Strategy Group, and is aligned with the guidance document ‘Creating Inclusive Environments for Trans Participants in Canadian Sport.’ Participation in community rugby in Canada is encouraged based on the gender in which a participant identifies and is not to be subjected to requirements for disclosure of personal information beyond those required of cisgender athletes.”
Physical reality does not magically melt away because we wish it so. Men cannot ever be women and the very notion that ‘woman’ is an idea inside a man’s head is completely sexist and offensive.
This policy against female safety and the sex segregation of support is completely out of touch with reality and needs to be fixed ASAP.
I’m fairly new on Twitter but have already had the displeasure of witnessing the fury of faux-progressive backlash against feminism and feminists attempting to speak their mind in public places… in Canada. Canada?? The easy going, live and let live notions we like to believe in the more sensible regions of Canada seem to dissipate in our larger cities. Queer rights activists and trans activists have mounted a vigorous assault not on the arguments of gender critical feminists, but rather their character, the venues that host said feminists, and a rather hyperbolic set of straw assertions/mantras that serve as conversational dead ends/thought terminating cliches.
This is not the left that I grew up with, nor do I intend to ever associate with. These individuals seem to believe that their individualistic solutions to systemic social problems will somehow win the day. Not gonna happen.
The comparison between the regressive left and religious is worthy of examination. James Bloodworth makes the comparison in his essay on Unherd.
“But politics as religion invariably comes with a cost. There is, naturally, a constant hunt for heretics. Public denunciations followed by ‘cancellations’ are de rigueur. Rigid adherence to doctrine is celebrated, while those who err are pompously told that they are on the “wrong side of history”. Political spats focus on the moral character of a person rather than the content of their arguments. Public arguments in which, as Swift phrases it, “identity leftists spend a great deal of time expending venom… at fellow leftists with whom they have some minor disagreements” are ubiquitous on Twitter and other social media.
All of this takes the Left further into the echo chamber, away from the people it is supposed to represent. Attitudes which are held by the vast majority of Britons — that there should be some upper limit on immigration, that sex differences exist, that gender isn’t entirely a social construct — are enough to get a person ‘cancelled’ by today’s hobbyist Left. Moreover, the slippery equation of words — or even thoughts — with violence creates a censorious climate where activists feel justified in hounding people from public life completely.”
See the transactivists haranguing women and trying to disrupt two public (in Toronto and Vancouver respectively) gatherings that featured Meghan Murphy and other feminist speakers was solid proof for me of the parallel.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…